Search
Search results
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated I Will Find You in Books
Jan 9, 2020
I Will Find You by John M. Taylor is a painfully beautiful story of one boys love for his mother and his journey to be reunited with her. He travels from England to Australia and spends some time in the outback as well as aboard ships before returning home.
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
Nick Thorne, once Robbie Spalding lived in England where his father was part of the Airforce during the war. When his fathers plane is shot down his mother joins the Land Army but she falls and suffers a major injurer. Nick is taken to an orphanage temporarily and only learns of his mothers death when he is told he is being sent to a family in Australia. When he gets to Australia he finds no family is waiting, instead, he is taken to Clontarf where the Brothers beat, neglect, and abuse the boys. When Nick turned thirteen he was sent to a Church Farm to work but it was just like Clontarf, it was here that he managed to escape.
With the help of an Aboriginal boy, Gidga, Nick survives the Australian outback and makes his way to the Aboriginals village. Even though Nick likes the Aboriginal people he still believes his mother is alive and leaves to go find her. His journey is not an easy one as he signs on with fishing ships, understanding that he wont be able to do anything without money. Most of the time it appears that he will never find anything out about his parents or his past because it seems that none of the departments he is directed to can help him. To make matters worse no one wants to take responsibility for his old records. In a final attempt to find anything out Nick goes back to his old hometown in England.
I enjoyed all the twists and surprises in Nicks life. I wanted to keep reading to find out where Nick would find himself and who he would meet there. Nick is also the type of character where the reader is emotionally connected to his story right away. What I did not care for was the fact that there was a joke on page two hundred and eighty that I did not understand at all. While that does not affect my overall opinion of the book I feel I am not the only one confused. Also when Nick starts trying to track down his records things get very repetitive. I can only imagine the frustration he felt as I was frustrated by just reading it over again multiple times.
The book is designed with adult readers in mind. There were numerous events in the book such as boys having to share a bed with one of their caretakers or being beaten to the point of passing out that was hard to read. With that in mind, this book is more suited for mature readers. Overall I give this book a rating of 4 out of 4. This book offers tragedy and hope at the same time. The back of the book even offers some factual information about what happened to other children like Nick who were sent to Australia.
https://nightreaderreviews.blogspot.com
JT (287 KP) rated Elysium (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Neill Blomkamp came pretty much out of nowhere. Having only directed a handful of shorts he was handed $30m by Peter Jackson and told to make any film he wanted. That offer for any up and coming director would be as good as winning the lottery and he didn’t disappoint, making the dystopian District 9 which went on to become a smash hit.
So when it was announced that his next project would be called Elysium there was much talk, excitement and anticipation about what it would entail. Blomkamp again focuses on a dystopian society, L.A. to be exact (but not an Alien in sight). With Earth quite literally turned into a shit hole it’s ravaged by crime, poverty and disease along with an ever growing population just looking to survive.
The rich and wealthy made their escape from the planet and reside on a beautiful man made space station called Elysium. Here there is no poverty or sickness and one can be cured instantly by stepping into a medical pod. Dropped into all of this is Max (Matt Damon), a former convict who is trying to get by in life but who still holds a fascination that one day he too will get to live on Elysium as we find out through an early back story.
Elysium is an enjoyable ride of thrills and spills and as a sci-fi actioner it ticks all the relevant boxes.
When an accident at work leaves him with only a few days to live he steps back into the criminal underworld in order to get himself a one way ticket onto Elysium and cure himself and in the process become a saviour for the suffering hordes on Earth. Blomkamp sticks with District 9′s Sharlto Copley an actor plucked from obscurity and who has gone on to make a real name for himself. Here he plays sleeper agent Kruger complete with distinguished South African accent and beard.
Pairing up with him from the safe confines of Elysium is Jodie Foster’s Delacourt, the Secretary of Homeland Security whose cool and unassuming personality gives her licence to literally blast people from outer space while drinking tea. She wants her place as the next Elysium president and so enlists the help of the slimy John Carlyle (William Fichtner) who helps to organise a reboot program for the station which falls into the wrong hands.
Blomkamp keeps the story very much as close to reality as possible without overstepping the mark. A world of poverty and hardship with the rich living the high life, sound familiar?
Filmed on location in the slums of Mexico as opposed to South Africa it lends itself to real life and the harsh reality that this isn’t a film set built with a large overblown budget but a place where everyday folk have to live. The action is captivating both on Earth and in space. A car chase and data heist that encounters a flying Bugatti Veyron. While in space, ships explode and crash into the tranquil surroundings of normality (well as normal as you can get in 2154).
The shaven headed Damon gives a good account of himself whether it’s delivering the dramatic line or battling through the action – complete with exoskeleton he is always reliable.
So when it was announced that his next project would be called Elysium there was much talk, excitement and anticipation about what it would entail. Blomkamp again focuses on a dystopian society, L.A. to be exact (but not an Alien in sight). With Earth quite literally turned into a shit hole it’s ravaged by crime, poverty and disease along with an ever growing population just looking to survive.
The rich and wealthy made their escape from the planet and reside on a beautiful man made space station called Elysium. Here there is no poverty or sickness and one can be cured instantly by stepping into a medical pod. Dropped into all of this is Max (Matt Damon), a former convict who is trying to get by in life but who still holds a fascination that one day he too will get to live on Elysium as we find out through an early back story.
Elysium is an enjoyable ride of thrills and spills and as a sci-fi actioner it ticks all the relevant boxes.
When an accident at work leaves him with only a few days to live he steps back into the criminal underworld in order to get himself a one way ticket onto Elysium and cure himself and in the process become a saviour for the suffering hordes on Earth. Blomkamp sticks with District 9′s Sharlto Copley an actor plucked from obscurity and who has gone on to make a real name for himself. Here he plays sleeper agent Kruger complete with distinguished South African accent and beard.
Pairing up with him from the safe confines of Elysium is Jodie Foster’s Delacourt, the Secretary of Homeland Security whose cool and unassuming personality gives her licence to literally blast people from outer space while drinking tea. She wants her place as the next Elysium president and so enlists the help of the slimy John Carlyle (William Fichtner) who helps to organise a reboot program for the station which falls into the wrong hands.
Blomkamp keeps the story very much as close to reality as possible without overstepping the mark. A world of poverty and hardship with the rich living the high life, sound familiar?
Filmed on location in the slums of Mexico as opposed to South Africa it lends itself to real life and the harsh reality that this isn’t a film set built with a large overblown budget but a place where everyday folk have to live. The action is captivating both on Earth and in space. A car chase and data heist that encounters a flying Bugatti Veyron. While in space, ships explode and crash into the tranquil surroundings of normality (well as normal as you can get in 2154).
The shaven headed Damon gives a good account of himself whether it’s delivering the dramatic line or battling through the action – complete with exoskeleton he is always reliable.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Toy Story (1995) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
A masterpiece
Film #9 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Toy Story
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
When Toy Story was first released in 1995, it was groundbreaking. The first ever fully computer animated film and the first released by Disney Pixar, this was also one of the first films I saw at the cinema as an 8 year old child. Admittedly at that age I was concentrating more on the colourful animated toys rather than appreciating the sheer wizardry on offer, but from repeated watches over the decades, I’ve come to fully recognise the sheer genius of this film.
Toy Story centres around the idea that toys are alive, a concept that most children would love to be true. It follows Woody, a cowboy voiced by Tom Hanks, who’s cushy existence as the top dog of Andy’s toys is disrupted by a new space ranger doll, Buzz Lightyear, voiced by Tim Allen. As Buzz soon becomes Andy’s favourite toy, Woody’s jealousy drives him to desperate measures that wind up with the pair of them becoming ‘lost toys’ and captives of evil neighbour Sid. And together with Buzz and Woody are a whole host of colourful and wacky toy characters, including Mr Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky Dog (Jim Varney), Etch-a Sketch and a bucketful of toy soldiers to name but a few of the childhood throwbacks on offer here.
Watching this back 25 years later, it’s hard to believe this film was released in the mid-90s. Whilst you can tell that more recent Disney Pixar releases have improved massively on the animation since Toy Story, the standard of the animation in this is hugely impressive. There are some studios that can’t master this level of detailed animation even now as we move into 2021. The feature and intricacies on show here is impressive, especially with the toy characters - you need to look no further than the scales on Rex (voiced memorably by Wallace Michael Shawn) as a shining example of this.
It isn’t just the animation that that makes Toy Story so brilliant though, it’s the entire package. It’s a heartwarming and often hilarious buddy story of sorts, with some strangely adult messages hidden in the childlike story (Buzz’s disillusionment at being a toy rather than a real space ranger is particularly poignant). As a child this made me believe my toys were alive, and as an adult I’m still hesitant about donating or throwing away old cuddly toys. It’s also full of what we’ve all come to know and love about Disney Pixar: a film suitable for kids but full of grown up innuendos and adult jokes that makes it appropriate for all ages. Alongside this it has a fantastic voice cast in household names Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, and of course brought us the first of many characters voiced by the unforgettable John Ratzenberger. And what further rounds this off is the catchy and touching original songs by Randy Newman. I doubt there are many people who haven’t heard “You’ve Got a Friend in Me”, a song that evokes such a warm and fuzzy feeling inside and is fully deserving of the ‘Best Original Song’ Oscar nomination.
Toy Story is undoubtedly a masterpiece in animation. Whilst it may not have aged incredibly well when comparing it with more recent releases, this is the film that first introduced us to the world of Disney Pixar and paved the way for all of those that have followed.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
10 Cloverfield Lane is the second film in the Cloverfield series but isn't a sequel. 10 Cloverfield lane doesn't follow on from the first film but is set at the same time however, there is almost nothing that links the two films (at least to begin with) and even some of the links aren't obvious. for example, right at the beginning of the film, Michelle is grabbing her belongings when the house is shaken. There is nothing made of this however, according to official sources this is caused by Clover's first attack in the first film.
In my review of Cloverfield I stated that it wasn't necessarily the film for Kaiju fans, especially if you want monster vs monster action and this is even more true for 10 Cloverfield Lane. This is not a monster film it's more a phycological thriller.
After leaving her home Michelle is in a car crash and wakes up in a bunker belonging to survivalist Howard. The only other person in the bunker is Howards neighbour, Emmett.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a slow burn, Howard tells Michelle that there has been an attack and that she can't leave because the air is probably contaminated, Michelle is not sure if this is true. And this is where the film is clever, if you know about the connection to the first Cloverfield film then you know that there could be something out there but that it may not be contamination, if you don't know about the connection then the attack could be possible. It's John Goodman's acting as Howard that really pulls the film along, sometimes he seems believable whilst other times he seems crazy never quite revealing just how much he actually knows, right down to his last line where he tells Michelle that she can't out run what is out there, hinting that he knows what is really going on.
It's the end of the film that (kind of) links 10 Cloverfield Lane to Cloverfield but still possibly not the part you'd think. When Michelle finally gets out of the bunker she is attacked by monsters but nothing we've seen before, there is a four legged dog type thing that is not one of the parasites from the first film and what at first looks like a space ship (an idea that is further enhanced by something Howard had said earlier) but we later see that it is a creature with a mechanical looking shell, this creature also has two tentacles similar to those on Clover. The biggest link to the first film is actually after these creatures, there are radio announcements that 'we have taken back the coast' referring to the fact that we the army have defeated Clover, showing us how much time has past.
As I said, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a good thriller, if you take it for what it is (not a monster film) then it is tense and enjoyable but, if you don't know about the link then the monsters at the end would be just odd as, if it was a stand alone film, it would work better as an invasion, even if it was an alien invasion where as these monsters do just seem to be there.
As an attempt to create a larger world and to show how the events in the first film affect other places it's a good start but there needs to more. Of course there is a third film but more about that next time.
In my review of Cloverfield I stated that it wasn't necessarily the film for Kaiju fans, especially if you want monster vs monster action and this is even more true for 10 Cloverfield Lane. This is not a monster film it's more a phycological thriller.
After leaving her home Michelle is in a car crash and wakes up in a bunker belonging to survivalist Howard. The only other person in the bunker is Howards neighbour, Emmett.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a slow burn, Howard tells Michelle that there has been an attack and that she can't leave because the air is probably contaminated, Michelle is not sure if this is true. And this is where the film is clever, if you know about the connection to the first Cloverfield film then you know that there could be something out there but that it may not be contamination, if you don't know about the connection then the attack could be possible. It's John Goodman's acting as Howard that really pulls the film along, sometimes he seems believable whilst other times he seems crazy never quite revealing just how much he actually knows, right down to his last line where he tells Michelle that she can't out run what is out there, hinting that he knows what is really going on.
It's the end of the film that (kind of) links 10 Cloverfield Lane to Cloverfield but still possibly not the part you'd think. When Michelle finally gets out of the bunker she is attacked by monsters but nothing we've seen before, there is a four legged dog type thing that is not one of the parasites from the first film and what at first looks like a space ship (an idea that is further enhanced by something Howard had said earlier) but we later see that it is a creature with a mechanical looking shell, this creature also has two tentacles similar to those on Clover. The biggest link to the first film is actually after these creatures, there are radio announcements that 'we have taken back the coast' referring to the fact that we the army have defeated Clover, showing us how much time has past.
As I said, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a good thriller, if you take it for what it is (not a monster film) then it is tense and enjoyable but, if you don't know about the link then the monsters at the end would be just odd as, if it was a stand alone film, it would work better as an invasion, even if it was an alien invasion where as these monsters do just seem to be there.
As an attempt to create a larger world and to show how the events in the first film affect other places it's a good start but there needs to more. Of course there is a third film but more about that next time.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A film worth getting into your life.
Reviewing documentaries is always a bit tricky, since it is often difficult to separate the quality of the film making from your emotional attachment to the subject material. In my case, my early life was saturated with Beatlemania. Although I was only 2 year’s old in 1963 at the start of it all, I had three older siblings who ramped up the excitement so much that it permeated my young mind. I still remember being vehemently “Sssshhed” since I was making too much noise during the live and ground-breaking “All you need is Love” telecast!
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Ron Howard’s film focuses on “the touring years” which as depicted were truly manic, spanning from 1963 to 1966 before then skipping forward to 1969 for their final rooftop concert. This was in a time when airline travel was not the more comfortable and smoke-free environment it is today, so these worldwide trips much have been seriously grueling, even without the adoration that reached dangerous proportions when they reached their destinations.
Howard has clearly had his research team scour the world for archive clips since – whilst sensitively skipping some of the more ‘commonly seen’ materials, like the “jewelry shaking” clip – the film shows concert action I certainly had never seen before.
The film is also nicely interlaced with celebrity cameos recalling their linkage to the Fab Four’s performances (often moving, like Whoopi Goldberg’s) and the group’s “legacy” effect on modern-day art (in Richard Curtis’s case rather less convincing). One of the most striking of these is that of Sigourney Weaver recounting her attendance as a pre-teen at the Beatle’s Rose Bowl performance in LA. There, in the newsreel footage of adoring fans, is the unmistakable face of the ‘before she was famous’ actress: at least I hope it really was her (as the clip’s timing implied) and not a lookalike, since that would be really disappointing!
Also featuring – although not enough for my liking – are Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, recounting their feelings about the events and what happened behind the closed doors of hotel rooms or – most notably – a meat truck.
What shines through is the honesty and intelligence of Lennon and McCartney, typified by the idiotic questioning of journalists, some of who had done so little homework they didn’t even know there wasn’t a Beatle called Eric! Some of the group’s off the cuff responses were priceless: “What is the secret of your success?” asks one journo. “We don’t know” quips John. “If we knew we’d form another group and be managers.”
While the film has enormous energy in its first two thirds, it rather runs out of momentum in its final reel…. a bit like the Beatles did in fact. It also has elements of gimmickry like the smoke rising from photo cigarettes which gets a tad tiresome after the tenth occurrence.
But this is a very watchable and enjoyable rock down memory lane for 50-somethings and for any fans old and young of the Fab Four’s music. Highly Recommended. Note that the documentary itself is about 90 minutes in length, with another 30 minutes of live concert music tagged onto the end post-titles (which for travel reasons I was unfortunately unable to stay for so can’t comment on).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Encanto (2021) in Movies
Nov 15, 2021
In a magical area of Columbia surrounded by mountains; exists a magical town watched over by the Madrigal family. The family lives in a magical home that is the center point for the community and is loved by the community.
In the new Disney film “Encanto”; audiences are told the story of how the family patriarch founded the community with a magical candle and how upon reaching a certain age; all members of her family receive a “gift” from the magical house which gives them an ability to help the community. From being able to heal with cooking to talking to the animals and super strength; the family Madrigal is the beloved pillar of the community.
To every rule there is an exception and young Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz); is the only member of her family not to receive a gift of powers. As such she is seen as a pariah from the family and believes she is more tolerated than loved especially compared to her siblings who are endowed with amazing abilities.
Things change when a new member of the family goes through the gifting ceremony; the first one since Mirabel was denied, and receives an amazing gift and basks in the love of the town and family. Mirabel has a vision of the house cracking and falling into ruin. She tries to warn her family but they see the house in its usual pristine condition and blame Mirabel for being jealous for not having a gift and wanting to take attention away from those who do.
Mirabel believes in what she saw and learns that members of her family may know more than they admit and that they hold the key to saving the day. This leads to a quest to find the absent Uncle Bruno (John Leguizamo); who has been absent as many believe his gift of prophecy only leads to bad things coming to fruition and has gone into hiding as a result.
Mirabel is soon forced to look deep inside herself and find her strength to overcome her own insecurities and save her family and community.
The film has great animation and is awash in color as it brings the magical community to life. The music is lively and is what you would expect from Lin- Manuel Miranda as it brings joy and energy to the film that is in keeping with the Disney tradition of amazing music in their animated films.
The biggest issue that I had with the film is that while fun and entertaining; the story never took the next step forward and at times dragged. This is not to say that “Encanto” is a bad film as it is lively, colorful, and fun; however it does not reach the heights of Disney classics like “Frozen” “Moana” and other classics. Think of it this way; “Lilo & Stitch” is a fine animated film but few would hold it in the same regard as “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Little Mermaid”.
In the end “Encanto” offers a fun experience for the family and fans to enjoy and shows how even when they do not hit the top of the mountain; Disney is still the Gold Standard in animation.
4 stars out of 5
In the new Disney film “Encanto”; audiences are told the story of how the family patriarch founded the community with a magical candle and how upon reaching a certain age; all members of her family receive a “gift” from the magical house which gives them an ability to help the community. From being able to heal with cooking to talking to the animals and super strength; the family Madrigal is the beloved pillar of the community.
To every rule there is an exception and young Mirabel (Stephanie Beatriz); is the only member of her family not to receive a gift of powers. As such she is seen as a pariah from the family and believes she is more tolerated than loved especially compared to her siblings who are endowed with amazing abilities.
Things change when a new member of the family goes through the gifting ceremony; the first one since Mirabel was denied, and receives an amazing gift and basks in the love of the town and family. Mirabel has a vision of the house cracking and falling into ruin. She tries to warn her family but they see the house in its usual pristine condition and blame Mirabel for being jealous for not having a gift and wanting to take attention away from those who do.
Mirabel believes in what she saw and learns that members of her family may know more than they admit and that they hold the key to saving the day. This leads to a quest to find the absent Uncle Bruno (John Leguizamo); who has been absent as many believe his gift of prophecy only leads to bad things coming to fruition and has gone into hiding as a result.
Mirabel is soon forced to look deep inside herself and find her strength to overcome her own insecurities and save her family and community.
The film has great animation and is awash in color as it brings the magical community to life. The music is lively and is what you would expect from Lin- Manuel Miranda as it brings joy and energy to the film that is in keeping with the Disney tradition of amazing music in their animated films.
The biggest issue that I had with the film is that while fun and entertaining; the story never took the next step forward and at times dragged. This is not to say that “Encanto” is a bad film as it is lively, colorful, and fun; however it does not reach the heights of Disney classics like “Frozen” “Moana” and other classics. Think of it this way; “Lilo & Stitch” is a fine animated film but few would hold it in the same regard as “The Lion King”, “Beauty and the Beast”, and “The Little Mermaid”.
In the end “Encanto” offers a fun experience for the family and fans to enjoy and shows how even when they do not hit the top of the mountain; Disney is still the Gold Standard in animation.
4 stars out of 5
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.