Search
Lee (2222 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
For me, this was just a perfect movie
After the intensity and shock of Infinity War, I was certainly expecting some kind of epic payback and a plan to try and correct or alter the devastating effects of the snap, but I had no idea how that would all play out and wrap things up for us. Marvel have perfected the art of producing trailers which either give very little away, or hint at something which then doesn't even play out the way you expected. Not only did the trailers for Endgame follow that trend, there were parts of the trailers that weren't even in the movie! The result is something which gave me everything I hoped for, and a lot more.
Endgame also manages to include pretty much every single MCU character to date, including characters who you would never even imagine seeing in this movie. And it expertly and effortlessly juggles every single one of them too, weaving multiple plot threads and themes, paying homage to and referencing much of its back catalogue of movies. It rewards an audience that has been invested in these movies all the way, and it does this all perfectly. These are characters that we've followed and loved for over 10 years, experiencing their highs and their lows right there with them. We've laughed with them, felt their pain and their suffering, felt empowered and inspired by them. Endgame is the closing chapter to what has been one hell of an incredible journey and was always going to provide us with heightened levels of all of those emotions. Once again, I certainly wasn't expecting it to do that quite as perfectly as it did, and in as many ways as it did too. For me, it was the perfect conclusion to an incredible saga, and it completely blew me away.
Endgame also manages to include pretty much every single MCU character to date, including characters who you would never even imagine seeing in this movie. And it expertly and effortlessly juggles every single one of them too, weaving multiple plot threads and themes, paying homage to and referencing much of its back catalogue of movies. It rewards an audience that has been invested in these movies all the way, and it does this all perfectly. These are characters that we've followed and loved for over 10 years, experiencing their highs and their lows right there with them. We've laughed with them, felt their pain and their suffering, felt empowered and inspired by them. Endgame is the closing chapter to what has been one hell of an incredible journey and was always going to provide us with heightened levels of all of those emotions. Once again, I certainly wasn't expecting it to do that quite as perfectly as it did, and in as many ways as it did too. For me, it was the perfect conclusion to an incredible saga, and it completely blew me away.
HyruleBalverine (16 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 9, 2018
A light begins to shine on the darkness of the DC Extended Universe
After the dark brooding mess that was Batman Vs. Superman and the hot mess that was Suicide Squad, I was quite pleasantly surprised with Justice League.
With no offense intended towards Zack Snyder, who is good at what he does, I found his gritty take on the DC universe to be too dark. Whether the original intent had always been to start off dark and depressing and lead into a more light and hopeful tone with Justice League, or if it was Joss Whedon's influence once he stepped in when Snyder had to leave, or just WB/DC trying to keep up with Marvel, the shift in tone was the right choice.
While they are clearly still trying to play catch up with the MCU in setting up their cinematic universe, the build up in this movie did not feel quite as rushed as Dawn of Justice. Personally, I would have liked to see the other characters getting their own movies in order to set this up, but they're introductions in this movie seemed to have been done well. Also, while DC is certainly trying to match Marvel by using their big baddie Darkseid (the Thanos of the DC Universe), they didn't throw him into this movie in an attempt to jump into their own Infinity War type movie; rather, they used another character, tied to Darkseid, to build up to the massive enemy that Darkseid will be.
It is my hope that after the amazing film that Wonder Woman was and the great change in tone of Justice League, the DCEU will continue with this current trend of hopefulness and quippy Super Heroes.
With no offense intended towards Zack Snyder, who is good at what he does, I found his gritty take on the DC universe to be too dark. Whether the original intent had always been to start off dark and depressing and lead into a more light and hopeful tone with Justice League, or if it was Joss Whedon's influence once he stepped in when Snyder had to leave, or just WB/DC trying to keep up with Marvel, the shift in tone was the right choice.
While they are clearly still trying to play catch up with the MCU in setting up their cinematic universe, the build up in this movie did not feel quite as rushed as Dawn of Justice. Personally, I would have liked to see the other characters getting their own movies in order to set this up, but they're introductions in this movie seemed to have been done well. Also, while DC is certainly trying to match Marvel by using their big baddie Darkseid (the Thanos of the DC Universe), they didn't throw him into this movie in an attempt to jump into their own Infinity War type movie; rather, they used another character, tied to Darkseid, to build up to the massive enemy that Darkseid will be.
It is my hope that after the amazing film that Wonder Woman was and the great change in tone of Justice League, the DCEU will continue with this current trend of hopefulness and quippy Super Heroes.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Apr 25, 2020 (Updated Apr 25, 2020)
Epic Fail
People forget that universal started this whole shared universe concept. So the MCU, the DCU, The Conjuring franchise and DC Shared TV shows all copied unverisal. Now universal is trying to copy them, but failed, failed epic.
The plot: Nick Morton is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artifacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
The Dark Universe was a failure, the Dark Universe came and went so fast, it was a blink of a eye and proof it disappeared. Never to be seen or heard from again.
If the dark universe did happpen, their were going to have Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein's Monster, and Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man. And Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, aka the Nick Fury of this franchise.
This movie tryed to setup five different films with one film, while having like six different plot lines, seven differney genres. This movie didnt know what is was. And thats why it failed.
@Awix, @Erika , @Ross and @LeftSideCut. Said it perfectly in their reviews.
Dont watch this movie, it will put you to sleep and you will forgot about it, when the credits hit. Watch The Mummy trilogy instead or the oringal one, or the hammer studio one.
The plot: Nick Morton is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artifacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
The Dark Universe was a failure, the Dark Universe came and went so fast, it was a blink of a eye and proof it disappeared. Never to be seen or heard from again.
If the dark universe did happpen, their were going to have Javier Bardem as the Frankenstein's Monster, and Johnny Depp as The Invisible Man. And Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, aka the Nick Fury of this franchise.
This movie tryed to setup five different films with one film, while having like six different plot lines, seven differney genres. This movie didnt know what is was. And thats why it failed.
@Awix, @Erika , @Ross and @LeftSideCut. Said it perfectly in their reviews.
Dont watch this movie, it will put you to sleep and you will forgot about it, when the credits hit. Watch The Mummy trilogy instead or the oringal one, or the hammer studio one.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Apr 29, 2020
There's a lot to love about this film and a lot to hate. I think this film does the best job of allowing you to live through Peter more than any other film. Some of my favorite shots throughout the whole movie are the ones where it looks like we're in Peter's perspective as he traverses New York City. I love Andrew Garfield in this role. Even though he's 27 in the film, he played a high school kid fairly well - at least I think so. I love Emma Stone too. As a blonde, I feel like she has this innocence that she doesn't have as a redhead.
Truthfully, I like Andrew Garfield's Spiderman and Tom Holland's Spiderman way more than I like Toby McGuire's. I think this film is entertaining and a good watch. You definitely get hooked in on Peter and are rooting for him. The only thing I didn't like were some of the effects. It's clear that there was more effort or money put in some scenes than others. Maybe that's just my opinion, but those small details can really pull you out of the world the film creates.
The other detail I appreciated is Gwen. When we think and talk about Spiderman, unless you're a die-hard fan, you think of Mary Jane. And she's great. Don't get me wrong. Kirsten Dunst in Toby McGuire's and Zendaya as M.J. in Tom Holland's, but Gwen often gets forgotten. I like that in this series, Gwen is the love interest instead of Mary Jane.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I think I still like Tom Holland's Spiderman better, but I think the fact that he's in the MCU plays a part in my love of him. I would recommend both of these films just to say you watched them.
Truthfully, I like Andrew Garfield's Spiderman and Tom Holland's Spiderman way more than I like Toby McGuire's. I think this film is entertaining and a good watch. You definitely get hooked in on Peter and are rooting for him. The only thing I didn't like were some of the effects. It's clear that there was more effort or money put in some scenes than others. Maybe that's just my opinion, but those small details can really pull you out of the world the film creates.
The other detail I appreciated is Gwen. When we think and talk about Spiderman, unless you're a die-hard fan, you think of Mary Jane. And she's great. Don't get me wrong. Kirsten Dunst in Toby McGuire's and Zendaya as M.J. in Tom Holland's, but Gwen often gets forgotten. I like that in this series, Gwen is the love interest instead of Mary Jane.
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I think I still like Tom Holland's Spiderman better, but I think the fact that he's in the MCU plays a part in my love of him. I would recommend both of these films just to say you watched them.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Werewolf By Night (2022) in Movies
Oct 6, 2022
The latest offering from Marvel Studios has arrived and it is a change of pace for the studio as it delves into the darker side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Werewolf By Night is a visually appealing tale that lovingly plays homage to the classic Black and White horror movies of old yet infuses modern content and a touch of humor.
When a group of Monster Hunters is assembled at Bloodstone Temple following the death of their leader, the assembled guests are tasked to compete against one another to find a relic and oh yes, content with a deadly monster in the maze as well.
The hunters are informed that they are fair game for one another and the combination of competition and survival promises danger and deadly encounters along the way.
Things are not as they seem as one of the hunters named Jack Russell (Gael Garcia Bernal) has a dark secret or two and when he ends up working with Elsa Bloodstone (Laura Donnelly), things get very interesting and deadly.
The show is deeply-enjoyable and makes me wish that this was a series versus a special but I would think that audiences will see some of the characters again in the future. There is a bit more violence than one might expect from the MCU but due to the Black and White filming, it is not as graphic as it could be but still might be more than some younger fans would expect.
Composer Michael Giacchino has done an amazing job with the show as the pacing is solid, the characters are interesting, and the visuals capture the enduring nostalgia of the bygone classics.
I enjoyed the special from start to finish and should be an enjoyable experience not only for Marvel fans but for horror fans everywhere.
Look for it on Disney+ on December 7th.
Werewolf By Night is a visually appealing tale that lovingly plays homage to the classic Black and White horror movies of old yet infuses modern content and a touch of humor.
When a group of Monster Hunters is assembled at Bloodstone Temple following the death of their leader, the assembled guests are tasked to compete against one another to find a relic and oh yes, content with a deadly monster in the maze as well.
The hunters are informed that they are fair game for one another and the combination of competition and survival promises danger and deadly encounters along the way.
Things are not as they seem as one of the hunters named Jack Russell (Gael Garcia Bernal) has a dark secret or two and when he ends up working with Elsa Bloodstone (Laura Donnelly), things get very interesting and deadly.
The show is deeply-enjoyable and makes me wish that this was a series versus a special but I would think that audiences will see some of the characters again in the future. There is a bit more violence than one might expect from the MCU but due to the Black and White filming, it is not as graphic as it could be but still might be more than some younger fans would expect.
Composer Michael Giacchino has done an amazing job with the show as the pacing is solid, the characters are interesting, and the visuals capture the enduring nostalgia of the bygone classics.
I enjoyed the special from start to finish and should be an enjoyable experience not only for Marvel fans but for horror fans everywhere.
Look for it on Disney+ on December 7th.
David McK (3550 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019 (Updated Jul 23, 2024)
Summmer 2008: at the time of writing this, now 11 years ago (edit: now 16), and the cinematic landscape was rather different - the MCU was only just starting off (with Iron Man), and superheroes in the cinema were not as commonplace as they are today ( to the best of my memory).
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
While Christopher No.an had effectively rebooted perhaps DCs most famous character in Batman Begins, that film had (deliberately, IMO) kept the focus pretty much on Bruce Wayne/Batman rather than on his mos famous foes, ending with a deliberate tease of the introduction of the Joker.
And what an introduction he gets in this.
As portrayed by Heath Ledger (whose untimely death no doubt helped stoke the interest for this movie: his last full screen role), this Joker is very different than Jack Nicholson's 1989 portrayal. It's a definite magnetic tour de force from the actor, sure, although (personally) I've never really viewed the character as a Joker so much as as a genius psychopath.
"I'm an agent of chaos" he says at one point. "I'm a dog chasing a car. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it". And that, to me, is what is missing from the character-as-written.
Alongside Ledger, Aaron Eckhart also puts in a brilliant turn as Harvey Dent, completely blowing Tommy Lee Jones portrayal of the same character (in Batman Forever) out of the water. It's a far more realistic interpretation of what drives Dent to become Two-face, with some frightenly realistic effects.
And, finally, it may be a small thing: but in this Batman gets and operates (briefly) out of Gotham city, making his world seem more 'real' as a result.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Utterly preposterous
Thor is arguably one of Marvel’s strongest characters. Played by the superb Chris Hemsworth since 2011, the God of thunder is one of the MCUs most popular assets.
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
It’s unfortunate then that he’s been lambasted with the weakest solo films of the entire series, the son of Odin really has deserved much better.
Thor’s inception in the first of his three solo outings was a competent if unremarkable origins story and the less said about Thor: The Dark World, which remains the poorest film of the entire MCU, the better. Now, just in time for Infinity War,Thor: Ragnarok rolls into cinemas. But does it do its leading man justice?Imprisoned on the other side of the universe, the mighty Thor (Hemsworth) finds himself in a deadly gladiatorial contest that pits him against the Hulk (Bruce Banner), his former ally and fellow Avenger. Thor’s quest for survival leads him in a race against time to prevent the all-powerful goddess of death, Hela, (Cate Blanchett) from destroying his home world and the Asgardian civilisation.
This third film for our mighty Avenger is really something. A film more akin to Guardians of the Galaxy than its overly stuffy predecessors. Director Taika Waititi in his first big-budget feature has managed what many had thought was impossible, he’s given Thor a rather brilliant movie.
But how? Well, he’s realised what no-one else has. The premise surrounding our titular hero is utterly ridiculous. Rather than shy away from that and create something serious, he’s embraced it with humour, music and my goodness, a lot of colour.
If you thought Guardians of the Galaxy used every colour on the spectrum, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Thor: Ragnarok is quite something to watch. From the gold-tipped spears of Asgard that glisten like never before, to the trash-topped planet of Sakaar, everything is dripping in colour.
“Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice.”
Speaking of Sakaar, it contains one of the MCUs best new additions: Jeff Goldbum. Sorry, I mean the Grandmaster. Casting Goldblum in the role of an immortal game-player really is an inspired choice. The 65-year-old legend has made a career on playing himself and it works exceptionally well here. His improvisation is absolutely spot on.
Ragnarok throws up a few other surprises too. One being that Chris Hemsworth is absolutely hilarious. He and Tom Hiddleston bounce off each other incredibly well and we see real chemistry – the chemistry that should have been evident from the start. Cate Blanchett also turns the cheese up to 11 as the latest throwaway Marvel villain, Hela.
She fares better than the majority of Marvel villains and is certainly more interesting than Christopher Eccelston’s, Malekith, but they never quite make the impact that the scriptwriters were clearly looking for. Nevertheless, Blanchett is excellent.
Thankfully, Thor: Ragnarok doesn’t suffer from the absence of Natalie Portman’s dull Jane Foster, and though she is referenced early on, newcomer Tessa Thompson as Valkyrie provides a fitting replacement and possible future love-interest for our intrepid hero.
Unfortunately, it’s not all good news. Surprisingly the first 30 minutes feel incredibly rushed as numerous loose storylines are brought together and the improvised nature of the script lends itself to a little too much humour. Yes, we get it, Marvel films are funny, but this should not be at the expense of the more emotional sequences that the movie tries to put across.
Nevertheless, Thor: Ragnarok is a resounding success, created by a man who clearly has a passion for this corner of the MCU. He manages to make an absolutely preposterous film – and that’s exactly how Thor should be. Take a bow Mr. Waititi.
A little tip – there are two end credit sequences waiting for you. You’re welcome.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/10/26/thor-ragnarok-review/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 4, 2018 (Updated Oct 4, 2018)
Unexpectedly fun and comical (1 more)
Tom Hardy
This Is The Movie That Everyone Hates?
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have to be honest, I was not on-board with this film going in at all. I wasn't interested in a Spiderman-less Spiderman universe and the trailers didn't exactly sell me on it either. It looked like they were messing with the origin of Venom too much and the action set pieces didn't look too impressive. Then there was the fact that the review embargo was only lifted a day before the movie's release, then there were the terrible reviews. Suffice to say I went into this with a morbid curiosity expecting a total mess.
However, I am happy to report that this movie actually really pleasantly surprised me and I had a ton of fun watching Venom.
When I heard that Tom Hardy was playing Eddie Brock, I was really gutted because I think that he would have been the perfect choice for the MCU's Wolverine. I also thought that this was going to be a mistake in terms of Hardy's career; out of all of the superhero movies he could have been a part of, he chose Venom? I was happy to be proven wrong, Hardy was great in both his role as Eddie Brock and as Venom. He was funny, scary and heartfelt at all the right moments and looked like he was having a good time playing the character.
This movie did remind me a lot of Upgrade, which was also a Sci-fi movie released this year with a protagonist who gains a voice in his head and extraordinary powers that he doesn't have any control over. Coincidentally Tom Hardy also looks strikingly similar to the actor in Upgrade, Logan-Marshall Green. If I had to compare the two movies, I personally preferred Upgrade, but I had a lot of fun with both of them.
And that's the best thing about this movie, it is fun. Sure, it's not a comic book accurate Venom origin and it's not connected to the MCU's Spiderman and it's not up to snuff compared to the recent entries in the MCU, but it is a ton of fun to watch this violent alien join forces with a witty, down on his luck reporter and wreak havoc.
I'm going to drop a few spoilers going forward, so if you have yet to see the movie, you should probably click away now.
The thing that was really bothering me during the opening of the movie was; why is this story taking place in San Francisco? Eddie Brock is a New Yorker, not a San Franciscan. Then they addressed that issue and explained that he had moved away from New York. It was only a brief, throwaway line, but they didn't have to bother including it and I appreciate that they did.
I also really enjoyed the brief appearance of She-Venom. Sure, the odds that this Symbiote that rejects almost every human host that it comes into contact with, just happens to bond perfectly with this couple, is a bit of a stretch. However, this is a comic book movie with aliens, so I'm willing to accept a few stretches in the movie's logic.
Lastly I like the fact that they teased Carnage in the post credits tease and I am glad that they got Woody Harrelson to play him, he is one of my favourite actors... but my God he looked really dumb in that red wig, like almost parody bad.
Overall, although I had extremely low expectations going into Venom, it exceeded them by a great deal. Sure, it's not Infinity War and it's not even Spiderman: Homecoming, but it is a lot of fun and there is definitely a good amount of enjoyment to be had in Venom.
However, I am happy to report that this movie actually really pleasantly surprised me and I had a ton of fun watching Venom.
When I heard that Tom Hardy was playing Eddie Brock, I was really gutted because I think that he would have been the perfect choice for the MCU's Wolverine. I also thought that this was going to be a mistake in terms of Hardy's career; out of all of the superhero movies he could have been a part of, he chose Venom? I was happy to be proven wrong, Hardy was great in both his role as Eddie Brock and as Venom. He was funny, scary and heartfelt at all the right moments and looked like he was having a good time playing the character.
This movie did remind me a lot of Upgrade, which was also a Sci-fi movie released this year with a protagonist who gains a voice in his head and extraordinary powers that he doesn't have any control over. Coincidentally Tom Hardy also looks strikingly similar to the actor in Upgrade, Logan-Marshall Green. If I had to compare the two movies, I personally preferred Upgrade, but I had a lot of fun with both of them.
And that's the best thing about this movie, it is fun. Sure, it's not a comic book accurate Venom origin and it's not connected to the MCU's Spiderman and it's not up to snuff compared to the recent entries in the MCU, but it is a ton of fun to watch this violent alien join forces with a witty, down on his luck reporter and wreak havoc.
I'm going to drop a few spoilers going forward, so if you have yet to see the movie, you should probably click away now.
The thing that was really bothering me during the opening of the movie was; why is this story taking place in San Francisco? Eddie Brock is a New Yorker, not a San Franciscan. Then they addressed that issue and explained that he had moved away from New York. It was only a brief, throwaway line, but they didn't have to bother including it and I appreciate that they did.
I also really enjoyed the brief appearance of She-Venom. Sure, the odds that this Symbiote that rejects almost every human host that it comes into contact with, just happens to bond perfectly with this couple, is a bit of a stretch. However, this is a comic book movie with aliens, so I'm willing to accept a few stretches in the movie's logic.
Lastly I like the fact that they teased Carnage in the post credits tease and I am glad that they got Woody Harrelson to play him, he is one of my favourite actors... but my God he looked really dumb in that red wig, like almost parody bad.
Overall, although I had extremely low expectations going into Venom, it exceeded them by a great deal. Sure, it's not Infinity War and it's not even Spiderman: Homecoming, but it is a lot of fun and there is definitely a good amount of enjoyment to be had in Venom.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"i didn't do it for him"
I was hoping to see something in The Dark World that I had missed the previous two viewings...something to help me enjoy this a bit more. Unfortunately, I hadn't missed anything. This is a drag.
Where do I start with the flaws? A lot of characters are criminally underutilised including Jane Foster, Erik Selvig, Odin, Heimdall and perhaps most important, the main antagonist, Malekith. I like the idea of the Dark Elves being used here but the execution is terribly flawed. It doesn't help that the likes of Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins are seemingly coasting here; the former with literally no chemistry with her love interest. Although the latter's sheer presence helps boost scenes he is in, even if he isn't trying. The other issue is this whole film is essentially flashes of brilliance drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Every now and then we get a cool scene involving Loki or Thor will crack a joke or there will be a cool action sequence but then that 5 minutes is followed by 20 minutes of characters having little to do. It's criminally boring.
I bet you can all guess the good...Chris Hemsworth who plays Thor and Tom Hiddleston who plays Loki. These two are the stars (obviously) and if it wasn't for them, this would probably get only one star. I mean, I like Thor's friends but they don't get much screentime in this. I like the look of Asgard but the story that accompanies it is boring.
It's a shame that two great lead characters are wasted by weak writing and unmotivated performances from some other cast members.
Where do I start with the flaws? A lot of characters are criminally underutilised including Jane Foster, Erik Selvig, Odin, Heimdall and perhaps most important, the main antagonist, Malekith. I like the idea of the Dark Elves being used here but the execution is terribly flawed. It doesn't help that the likes of Natalie Portman and Anthony Hopkins are seemingly coasting here; the former with literally no chemistry with her love interest. Although the latter's sheer presence helps boost scenes he is in, even if he isn't trying. The other issue is this whole film is essentially flashes of brilliance drowning in a sea of mediocrity. Every now and then we get a cool scene involving Loki or Thor will crack a joke or there will be a cool action sequence but then that 5 minutes is followed by 20 minutes of characters having little to do. It's criminally boring.
I bet you can all guess the good...Chris Hemsworth who plays Thor and Tom Hiddleston who plays Loki. These two are the stars (obviously) and if it wasn't for them, this would probably get only one star. I mean, I like Thor's friends but they don't get much screentime in this. I like the look of Asgard but the story that accompanies it is boring.
It's a shame that two great lead characters are wasted by weak writing and unmotivated performances from some other cast members.