Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
As solid as the Rock
Who doesn’t love a good disaster movie? From Dante’s Peak to The Day After Tomorrow, there’s enough city-levelling action in the movie archives to terrify even the most urban of us.
The genre came to a head somewhat in 2009 with the overly cheesy 2012. Directed by Roland Emmerich, aka the disaster movie king, it was a huge box-office success but audiences were turned off by the idea of destroying the entire globe.
After a few years off, the genre returns with San Andreas. But can this earthquake-based blockbuster evoke memories of yesteryear’s disaster flicks?
Dwayne Johnson stars as Ray Gaines, a chief rescue officer with the LAFD and in typical The Rock style, manages to captivate the audience from beginning to end of this exceptionally cheesy yet surprisingly effective movie.
The beautiful Carla Gugino plays Ray’s estranged wife, Emma with Alexandra Daddario taking on the role of their daughter Blake. There’s even a small role for Kylie Minogue, though she is rather unnoticed here.
San Andreas follows the three central characters as they try to reunite with one another after a series of devastating earthquakes along the west coast of America, all of which are predicted by brilliant seismologist Lawrence – a wasted Paul Giamatti.
The film is visually stunning, but as with any in the genre, lacks a defined story with the characters being thrown from one amazing set piece to another. From the very beginning the audience is subjected to gargantuan action sequences including the much-marketed tsunami that acts as a placeholder for the film’s final act – it is absolutely mesmerising to watch.
Johnson proves time-and-time again that he is in the right business. Along with Schwarzenegger he is at his best in films where his brawn is needed the most and it’s certainly the case here. Surprisingly though, The Rock provides a rich emotional undertone due to a horrific past family incident.
Unfortunately, there is such a lack of originality in San Andreas’ story that it’s easy to signpost exactly what is going to happen before it actually does. The reason? Simply because it’s been done to death. Disaster flicks are very 90s with Dante’s Peak having a similar family unit and even in the noughties, The Day After Tomorrow featuring the well-worn reuniting with children plotline.
There are some clever touches however, parts of the film where you would expect generic clichés, it cleverly dangles a red herring and then moves the plot in a completely different direction.
It’s clear to see that disaster movies will always find their audience. Those not looking for a deep and meaningful story and a rollercoaster ride of special effects instead will find much to enjoy here.
Dwayne Johnson is superb in his role with the majority of the other characters falling by the wayside somewhat, and in the end, San Andreas proves to be a solid if not overly original experience.
It’s fair to say though, this film is more than worth the price of a cinema ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/31/as-solid-as-the-rock-san-andreas-review/
The genre came to a head somewhat in 2009 with the overly cheesy 2012. Directed by Roland Emmerich, aka the disaster movie king, it was a huge box-office success but audiences were turned off by the idea of destroying the entire globe.
After a few years off, the genre returns with San Andreas. But can this earthquake-based blockbuster evoke memories of yesteryear’s disaster flicks?
Dwayne Johnson stars as Ray Gaines, a chief rescue officer with the LAFD and in typical The Rock style, manages to captivate the audience from beginning to end of this exceptionally cheesy yet surprisingly effective movie.
The beautiful Carla Gugino plays Ray’s estranged wife, Emma with Alexandra Daddario taking on the role of their daughter Blake. There’s even a small role for Kylie Minogue, though she is rather unnoticed here.
San Andreas follows the three central characters as they try to reunite with one another after a series of devastating earthquakes along the west coast of America, all of which are predicted by brilliant seismologist Lawrence – a wasted Paul Giamatti.
The film is visually stunning, but as with any in the genre, lacks a defined story with the characters being thrown from one amazing set piece to another. From the very beginning the audience is subjected to gargantuan action sequences including the much-marketed tsunami that acts as a placeholder for the film’s final act – it is absolutely mesmerising to watch.
Johnson proves time-and-time again that he is in the right business. Along with Schwarzenegger he is at his best in films where his brawn is needed the most and it’s certainly the case here. Surprisingly though, The Rock provides a rich emotional undertone due to a horrific past family incident.
Unfortunately, there is such a lack of originality in San Andreas’ story that it’s easy to signpost exactly what is going to happen before it actually does. The reason? Simply because it’s been done to death. Disaster flicks are very 90s with Dante’s Peak having a similar family unit and even in the noughties, The Day After Tomorrow featuring the well-worn reuniting with children plotline.
There are some clever touches however, parts of the film where you would expect generic clichés, it cleverly dangles a red herring and then moves the plot in a completely different direction.
It’s clear to see that disaster movies will always find their audience. Those not looking for a deep and meaningful story and a rollercoaster ride of special effects instead will find much to enjoy here.
Dwayne Johnson is superb in his role with the majority of the other characters falling by the wayside somewhat, and in the end, San Andreas proves to be a solid if not overly original experience.
It’s fair to say though, this film is more than worth the price of a cinema ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/31/as-solid-as-the-rock-san-andreas-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Better Than I Hoped
Red Sparrow is one of those films where I respectfully disagree with the overall opinion of the critics. It's not perfect but it gets a lot of things right and is definitely worth your time if you're thinking of checking it out. After Dominika Egrova (Jennifer Lawrence) takes a career-ending fall during a ballet routine, she has to turn to seedier means of keeping her family afloat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Red Sparrow doesn't take long to take off, giving you just enough to keep you intrigued. You're introduced to Dominika who is just trying to do what she needs to do to take care of her mom. You see the world through her eyes and you feel her struggle.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
A lot of moving parts succeed as a whole to keep the film's hooks in you. You're trying to piece together just what the hell is happening and you can't turn away in fear you might miss something. The action won't overwhelm you with its frequency, but there is an underlying intensity from the stakes and the possibilities of what could happen.
Genre: 6
As a dramatic film, I've seen better, but I've also seen a lot worse. If I'm comparing this to other films, movies like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo come to mind. Dragon Tattoo would get the nod for me because of a stronger, cohesive story. I didn't leave saying it was the best drama I had ever seen, but it was pretty solid nonetheless.
Memorability: 10
There is a gritty realism about this film that will probably keep a lot of its images in my head for a long time to come. Its sensual in an unsettling, predatory kind of way. The twists will leave you guessing until the very end. Just when you think you've got something figured out, you're hit from another angle.
Pace: 9
The only time the film really trips over itself is when it starts to overthink things and get too confusing. Those brief moments created a pace slowdown that took me out of the enjoying the film for a bit. For the most part, the film moves at a consistent, solid pace.
Plot: 6
One of the weaker aspects of the film from an entirety standpoint. Not saying there were holes, but certain parts made it hard to figure out what was currently happening. Sure, I figured it out eventually but not before thinking of the number of different ways they could have presented the same information in an easier fashion.
Resolution: 5
Loved the ending. Hated it at the same time. Hard to explain without spoiling it so I won't go into too much detail here, but I'll just say that it connects to tying up loose ends. I felt that, compared to the rest of the film, the ending could have served to be a little less sloppy.
Overall: 86
Red Sparrow currently sits at a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. While it's not the perfect film, there are solid moments of action and intrigue that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. Thumbs up in my book.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Red Sparrow doesn't take long to take off, giving you just enough to keep you intrigued. You're introduced to Dominika who is just trying to do what she needs to do to take care of her mom. You see the world through her eyes and you feel her struggle.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
A lot of moving parts succeed as a whole to keep the film's hooks in you. You're trying to piece together just what the hell is happening and you can't turn away in fear you might miss something. The action won't overwhelm you with its frequency, but there is an underlying intensity from the stakes and the possibilities of what could happen.
Genre: 6
As a dramatic film, I've seen better, but I've also seen a lot worse. If I'm comparing this to other films, movies like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo come to mind. Dragon Tattoo would get the nod for me because of a stronger, cohesive story. I didn't leave saying it was the best drama I had ever seen, but it was pretty solid nonetheless.
Memorability: 10
There is a gritty realism about this film that will probably keep a lot of its images in my head for a long time to come. Its sensual in an unsettling, predatory kind of way. The twists will leave you guessing until the very end. Just when you think you've got something figured out, you're hit from another angle.
Pace: 9
The only time the film really trips over itself is when it starts to overthink things and get too confusing. Those brief moments created a pace slowdown that took me out of the enjoying the film for a bit. For the most part, the film moves at a consistent, solid pace.
Plot: 6
One of the weaker aspects of the film from an entirety standpoint. Not saying there were holes, but certain parts made it hard to figure out what was currently happening. Sure, I figured it out eventually but not before thinking of the number of different ways they could have presented the same information in an easier fashion.
Resolution: 5
Loved the ending. Hated it at the same time. Hard to explain without spoiling it so I won't go into too much detail here, but I'll just say that it connects to tying up loose ends. I felt that, compared to the rest of the film, the ending could have served to be a little less sloppy.
Overall: 86
Red Sparrow currently sits at a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. While it's not the perfect film, there are solid moments of action and intrigue that will keep you engaged from beginning to end. Thumbs up in my book.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Jamie (131 KP) rated Red Sister in Books
May 18, 2017
Excellent writing style (2 more)
Well developed characters
Fascinating world and magic system
A fun dark fantasy with an interesting world
Nona has a natural ability to fight and at nine years old she’s already convicted of murder. She finds herself whisked away to a special covenant that trains young girls to become assassins, and herein lies the base of the plot and all I can say is WOW. I was absolutely blown away by Red Sister.
The world building in this book is phenomenal and I want to know so much more about it. The sun is dying, the planet is slowly being enclosed in ice and with it humanity is changing, becoming desperate and looking to prophecies. There is a focus on the four races, each with unique talents in combat. The magic system is complex and is split between two schools of magic, and there is a plethora of diverse specializations for both.
On top of the detailed world, the book also nailed atmosphere. I felt a sense of wonder as Nona learned not just about fighting, but about magic and the world around her through her classes. It gave me a nostalgic feeling about a certain school of magic that I had also enjoyed in the past. I actually liked Nona a great deal. Even though she is a tiny little ass kicker she’s also extremely flawed and has a difficult time dealing with interpersonal relationships. Having a heroine who wasn’t perfect in every way was really rather refreshing. Experiencing her school days as she befriended other girls at the covenant was just plain fun and I liked most of the characters.
As Nona’s opinions of certain friends fluctuates as the story goes along, I found my opinions of those same characters changing as well. Does Nona hate this girl because she’s truly awful? Or is it because of petty jealousy and pressure from friends that her view of this other girl is distorted? I found these subtle details about Nona’s change of heart to be clever – it really shows how her character develops over the course of the story while also making me as a reader realize just how invested I was in the character.
Oh and of course, this book is full of action. Lawrence truly has a gift with words and reading descriptions of action sequences was exhilarating. The fights are extremely violent and rather brutal. I love the way this author writes. I couldn’t get enough of it!
I think the only thing that I found frustrating was how slow the characters were to seek help when faced with danger much larger than themselves. There were several points where it was obvious certain characters were up to no good, but no one ever went to the abbess or the other sisters with information. I’m talking about the kind of danger that can get someone killed. Even worse, several characters even mention to Nona that she should tell someone and she never does. I can kind of forgive the characters because all of them are young but it’s just frustrating because it feels intentional in order to draw out the story.
Overall, Red Sister has become both one of my favorite reads of the year and now one of my favorite fantasy books. I’m excited for the rest of the series and I’m very interested in exploring more of Lawrence’s work. I may have a new favorite author!
The world building in this book is phenomenal and I want to know so much more about it. The sun is dying, the planet is slowly being enclosed in ice and with it humanity is changing, becoming desperate and looking to prophecies. There is a focus on the four races, each with unique talents in combat. The magic system is complex and is split between two schools of magic, and there is a plethora of diverse specializations for both.
On top of the detailed world, the book also nailed atmosphere. I felt a sense of wonder as Nona learned not just about fighting, but about magic and the world around her through her classes. It gave me a nostalgic feeling about a certain school of magic that I had also enjoyed in the past. I actually liked Nona a great deal. Even though she is a tiny little ass kicker she’s also extremely flawed and has a difficult time dealing with interpersonal relationships. Having a heroine who wasn’t perfect in every way was really rather refreshing. Experiencing her school days as she befriended other girls at the covenant was just plain fun and I liked most of the characters.
As Nona’s opinions of certain friends fluctuates as the story goes along, I found my opinions of those same characters changing as well. Does Nona hate this girl because she’s truly awful? Or is it because of petty jealousy and pressure from friends that her view of this other girl is distorted? I found these subtle details about Nona’s change of heart to be clever – it really shows how her character develops over the course of the story while also making me as a reader realize just how invested I was in the character.
Oh and of course, this book is full of action. Lawrence truly has a gift with words and reading descriptions of action sequences was exhilarating. The fights are extremely violent and rather brutal. I love the way this author writes. I couldn’t get enough of it!
I think the only thing that I found frustrating was how slow the characters were to seek help when faced with danger much larger than themselves. There were several points where it was obvious certain characters were up to no good, but no one ever went to the abbess or the other sisters with information. I’m talking about the kind of danger that can get someone killed. Even worse, several characters even mention to Nona that she should tell someone and she never does. I can kind of forgive the characters because all of them are young but it’s just frustrating because it feels intentional in order to draw out the story.
Overall, Red Sister has become both one of my favorite reads of the year and now one of my favorite fantasy books. I’m excited for the rest of the series and I’m very interested in exploring more of Lawrence’s work. I may have a new favorite author!
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Allegiant (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A+ for effort
I think it’s probably fair to say that the Young Adult genre has become oversaturated due to the phenomenal success of The Hunger Games. Since coming to a slightly underwhelming conclusion last year, many new franchises have its crown firmly in their sights.
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
The Maze Runner was a muddled first outing with the second, Scorch Trials faring much better and the same can be said for the Divergent series. The first film was at times, an incomprehensible mess, while its follow-up, Insurgent was a thrilling if CGI-heavy and overlong affair.
Allegiant marks the first of two films ending the moderately successful series, with Ascendant being released in June next year. But does this split conclusion harm it as much as it did for Mockingjay?
Allegiant picks up immediately after the end of its predecessor with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), her lover Four (Theo James) and a group of friends leaving their once safe-haven of a post-apocalyptic Chicago in order to find a world beyond the wall, populated by others once thought forgotten. What ensues will change their lives forever.
The cast is on form in this instalment with Woodley growing into the role perfectly. It’s true that she’s no Jennifer Lawrence, and many would see her as a budget Katniss Everdeen, but she plays the character with a confidence only matched by her rival in the genre. Theo James gets a much larger role here too, and this is welcome, given his pivotal part in the novels.
Elsewhere, Naomi Watts does her best Julianne Moore impression and clearly watched the latter’s performance in Mockingjay to prepare for an incredibly similar role. Jeff Daniels is a nice addition as the Bureau of Genetic Welfare’s leader, David, though again, his acting prowess feels a little wasted.
Robert Schwentke directs the film with a unique colour palate and visual flair. Scenes “beyond the wall” are stunning and glisten with a red lick of paint, a welcome change from the staid, grey and blue many directors continue to use in blockbusters. It’s very Total Recall-esque in these sequences and better for it.
Unfortunately, once the plucky group of teens leave the Martian-like “Fringe” behind, the CGI kicks up a gear. This is where things start to unravel somewhat and Schwentke throws effect upon effect at the screen until there is hardly any realism left. On the whole, they’re pretty decent, but there are a few lapses that stop the film dead in its tracks, especially towards the cliff-hanger conclusion.
It’s also far too long. Much like Mockingjay, splitting the final book was an exercise in cash-grabbing rather than giving fans of the novels what they want. At over two hours in length, Allegiant drags in places and means the final film, as a whole, will be around four hours.
Nevertheless, there is much to enjoy here. The story for newcomers is incomprehensible and some of the dialogue is downright laughable, but for those of us continuing the saga, it’s an epic adventure with some cracking visuals, good acting and an intriguing plot – despite a few convoluted moments.
Overall, Allegiant is a film hampered by its timing. The similarities to The Hunger Games are obvious throughout, from exactly the same dialogue in certain scenes, to similar sets and similar casting decisions. But, if you can forget all that, it’s a fun, if overlong ride
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/13/a-for-effort-divergent-allegiant-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
May 29, 2018
Surprised by how much I enjoyed this film
I have a confession to make - I was surprised by how much I enjoyed SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY.
Going into this film, I felt that this film had a few things going against it:
1). Trying to replace Harrison Ford with another actor in the title role.
2). Bringing in Ron Howard to "rescue" the film.
3). Overcoming Star Wars "fatigue" from the less than enthusiastic response to THE LAST JEDI.
And you know what? It has overcome these things - and more!
Set sometime between Episode 3 and Episode 4 (and before ROGUE ONE), SOLO is, in essence, the origin story of everyone's favorite rascal, but is told in an interesting way - as a heist/caper film.
Credit must be given to writers Lawrence Kasdan (THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and his son Jonathan Kasdan. They have developed a fast paced, twisty, back and forth con-man film disguised as a sci-fi film set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Bringing in Howard was a good, competent move, for he moves the plot along sprightly and the special effects-laden chase sequences are tightly paced - if unspectacular - but they help move the action along - and doesn't get in the way. There is no "special effects for special effects-sake" sequences and Howard's workmanlike approach works well. He lets his strong cast strut on the screen with their strong characters which is wise of him for he inherited a film sprinkled with very good talent who looked like they were having fun with their characters.
Start with Woody Harrelson as Solo's mentor. He provides a solid anchor to the proceedings. As does Emilia Clarke as Solo's best friend/love interest. She more than holds her own with Solo and Harrelson - and is as much a "rascal" as the other two.. Also providing a good turn is Paul Bettany as the main villain.
As with most Star Wars films, the "non-human" continue to be interesting. Starting with Lady Proxima (voiced by Linda Hunt), followed by Rio Durant (voiced by Jon Favreau) and the robot L3 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge), all were interesting characters, rendered well.
And...of course...there is Chewbacca (performed by Joonas Suotamo). I was thrilled to revisit the friendship between "Chewie" and Han. It was really easy to forget that you were watching a person in a Wookie costume. There is a rumor of a Chewbacca movie - and I'm all for it.
Speaking of "friendships" - this film also explores the beginnings of the HAN SOLO/LANDO CALRISSIAN friendships - and Donald Glover almost steals the movie in his portrayal of Lando. He has the swagger, debonair (and slightly feminine) attitude of the character down.
Which leads me to Alden Ehrenreich's performance as Solo. I have mentioned Harrelson...and Clarke...and Glover...and Bettany...and the CG characters...and Chewbacca...and this leaves Ehreneich's portrayal somewhat in the background. Don't get me wrong, he does a GOOD job as Solo, but - I feel - he just lacks the charisma and screen presence of the rest of them, and, of course, of Harrison Ford. He grew on me as the film progressed, but I felt he faded into the background at times - where he should have been up front.
But...this is a quibble...in a film who's energy, pace and characters really worked for me - more than I thought it would.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Going into this film, I felt that this film had a few things going against it:
1). Trying to replace Harrison Ford with another actor in the title role.
2). Bringing in Ron Howard to "rescue" the film.
3). Overcoming Star Wars "fatigue" from the less than enthusiastic response to THE LAST JEDI.
And you know what? It has overcome these things - and more!
Set sometime between Episode 3 and Episode 4 (and before ROGUE ONE), SOLO is, in essence, the origin story of everyone's favorite rascal, but is told in an interesting way - as a heist/caper film.
Credit must be given to writers Lawrence Kasdan (THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and his son Jonathan Kasdan. They have developed a fast paced, twisty, back and forth con-man film disguised as a sci-fi film set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Bringing in Howard was a good, competent move, for he moves the plot along sprightly and the special effects-laden chase sequences are tightly paced - if unspectacular - but they help move the action along - and doesn't get in the way. There is no "special effects for special effects-sake" sequences and Howard's workmanlike approach works well. He lets his strong cast strut on the screen with their strong characters which is wise of him for he inherited a film sprinkled with very good talent who looked like they were having fun with their characters.
Start with Woody Harrelson as Solo's mentor. He provides a solid anchor to the proceedings. As does Emilia Clarke as Solo's best friend/love interest. She more than holds her own with Solo and Harrelson - and is as much a "rascal" as the other two.. Also providing a good turn is Paul Bettany as the main villain.
As with most Star Wars films, the "non-human" continue to be interesting. Starting with Lady Proxima (voiced by Linda Hunt), followed by Rio Durant (voiced by Jon Favreau) and the robot L3 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge), all were interesting characters, rendered well.
And...of course...there is Chewbacca (performed by Joonas Suotamo). I was thrilled to revisit the friendship between "Chewie" and Han. It was really easy to forget that you were watching a person in a Wookie costume. There is a rumor of a Chewbacca movie - and I'm all for it.
Speaking of "friendships" - this film also explores the beginnings of the HAN SOLO/LANDO CALRISSIAN friendships - and Donald Glover almost steals the movie in his portrayal of Lando. He has the swagger, debonair (and slightly feminine) attitude of the character down.
Which leads me to Alden Ehrenreich's performance as Solo. I have mentioned Harrelson...and Clarke...and Glover...and Bettany...and the CG characters...and Chewbacca...and this leaves Ehreneich's portrayal somewhat in the background. Don't get me wrong, he does a GOOD job as Solo, but - I feel - he just lacks the charisma and screen presence of the rest of them, and, of course, of Harrison Ford. He grew on me as the film progressed, but I felt he faded into the background at times - where he should have been up front.
But...this is a quibble...in a film who's energy, pace and characters really worked for me - more than I thought it would.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2018
In a word - fun
By this time, either you are "in" on the Marvel Cinematic Universe or you are "out". If you are "out", there's not a whole lot that I (or any other reviewer) will be able to do to change your mind. Which is too bad, for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a pretty fun ride. The folks at Marvel "have it down" and I can't remember the last time that I was disappointed by a Marvel movie.
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)