Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Trivia question for you…what does an immortal evil queen, King Arthur, Nazis and a boy born from Hell itself have in common? If you answered Hellboy you win a prize. The prize is going to the theater and watching the film and whether it’s a prize worth winning is something you’ll have to decide for yourself. I’m getting a bit ahead of myself though, so let’s rewind a bit and start at the beginning.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Hellboy (David Harbour) is a demon from Hell (hence the name), his backstory as we learn early on in the movie is pretty standard fare. The Nazi’s are on the verge of losing World War II and in a desperate move to turn the tide call upon the evil sorcerer Rasputin to call upon the depths of Hell and raise a champion who will fight for them. The incantation is interrupted when famous Nazi hunter Lobster Johnson (Thomas Haden Church) goes in with guns blazing, as other allied troops join the fray. Their relief at stopping the incantation is short-lived as the alter opens and a young demon climbs through. Professor Broom who had infiltrated the Nazi team had been brought in to put down any evil that was successfully summoned. Upon seeing the young demon, Professor Broom (for reasons known only to him at the time) decides not to kill him, but to take him in and raise him as his own.
Flash forward to present day, and Hellboy as we now know him alongside his father are members of the B.P.R.D (Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense). On a mission to defeat some giants that are roaming the countryside in England they stumble upon an ancient evil that dark forces are trying to retrieve. It seems back in the dark ages a war between humans and monsters was being waged. Seeing no end to the violence King Arthur (Mark Stanley) and his faithful wizard Merlin (Brian Gleeson) offer to surrender to The Blood Queen (Milla Jovovich). On top the hill where the surrender is to take place, the Blood Queen is betrayed by one of her own and King Arthur, using the infamous blade Excalibur, cut the Blood Queen into several parts. While she can’t be killed, she can be contained and each of her body parts are placed in separate boxes. These boxes are then sealed with holy water that only a holy man can unlock and are sent to the farthest corners of England. If the Blood Queen ever returns, she will release a plague that will not only destroy England but spread across the entire world. Thus, sets the stage for Hellboy.
Being a fan of the previous movies and in particular the portrayal of Hellboy by Ron Pearlman, I wasn’t sure how to feel about David Harbour in this role. It’s always a bit hit or miss when a series is rebooted, and I was pleasantly surprised with how David Harbour stepped up and into the role. While he doesn’t have the same menacing size and gruffness that Ron Pearlman possesses, it didn’t take me long to adjust to this new version. He is joined by a strong supporting cast consisting of Sasha Lane as his ghost whispering friend Alice and Ben Daimo as an MI-11 agent weary of teaming up with a monster. Milla Jovovich does an outstanding job as the Blood Queen and her fairy-pig friend portrayed by Stephen Graham and Douglas Tait.
Visually the movie is stunning, with the numerous monsters and fairy creatures coming to life before your eyes. The movie is exceptionally gory as one might expect, with numerous limb dismemberments, decapitations, and more blood than anyone would expect to erupt from such wounds. It’s over-the-top and meant to be that way which tended to bring some uncomfortable laughter at times from those around me. Having recently played Mortal Kombat 11, I couldn’t help but feel that some of the fatality screens in that game would have felt right at home in this movie.
Story is where I feel Hellboy falls a bit flat. There are so many characters and side stories going on that it’s easy to get lost in it. From my description above, you can see that it includes King Arthur, Rasputin, Nazis, Secret Societies, Witches that eat children, monsters…and that’s only in the first half of the movie. There is a ton going on and there are a lot of disconnects. While trying to avoid spoilers, there is a part in the film where Hellboy is talking to Baba Yaga (see another character reference), and after tricking her she places a curse on him. I’m still trying to figure out if the curse she placed on him occurred in the movie or not. In fact, I’m trying to figure out exactly what the point of that scene was. It’s not a bad story, but it tries to pack in a TON of references in its brief hour and forty five-ish minutes.
I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve never read any of the Hellboy graphic novels, I have seen both of the previous films, so I had a little bit of background going into this movie. I don’t know if all the references in the movie are pivotal to the novels or not. You certainly don’t have to have read them or seen the previous movies to appreciate this one, I just wonder if they tried to fit in too many Hellboy references into one film. Hellboy is an enjoyable ride, and it certainly doesn’t drag at all, in fact I was surprised at how quickly it was over. With all that being said, it’s a fun action-packed movie, with lots of gratuitous violence if that’s your thing. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking your children to see it, violence aside, I just think there is way too much going on and it can be difficult to follow. Oh, and don’t forget to stay through the credits for the end credit scene. It’s not pivotal to the movie, but worth waiting around for.
Goldenarrow74 (10 KP) rated My Scientology Movie (2015) in Movies
Jun 3, 2018
Frustrating but still unashamedly Louis
Now this is a good one:
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
• Scientology fascinates/horrifies me in equal measure
• I love Louis Theroux’s work over the years, from pornstars to neo-nazis
So, if you add together one of the most unassuming yet tenacious investigative journalists and one of the most misunderstood religions and there’s bound to be sparks flying, right?
Well almost. I recall some comments about a Louis documentary where he kinda lost his usual cool and got wound up/ deterred by his would-be interviewees. Perhaps this could be the one.
Even if this is not the film in question, it’s certainly a little more subdued than his usual material. Because the church told him to sod off.
I guess his view that he wants to offer an unbiased and impartial view on their religion is not one shared by David Whatshisface. This is a shame as I’d loved to have seen LT probe the chief scientist with his softly, softly good cop/nicer cop style of interviewing.
It could well have been a titanic battle of intellect and wills. Almost on a parallel with Westley & Vizzini in the Princess Bride. But now we’ll never know.
Seriously, it’s sort of hobbled the film from the start if we don’t get to speak to anyone from the church, as all we are going to here from therefore are people who don’t know about what really happens or do know but have now come out from the protective umbrella of Scientology and are (quite reasonably) regarded as “embittered”.
Even Louis is being asked a lot to conjure something truly worthwhile with his only evidence coming from potentially biased sources.
It’s only at the hour mark that we even hear of the charitable causes the church supports, from drug abuse to disaster relief. And not long before that we even see a very limited glimpse of the drills, or ‘tech’ that forms part of the Scientologist’s belief system.
What makes me laugh, disappointedly, is that Louis is complaining that the lawyers are accusing him of dwelling on those embittered “squirrels”.... when that’s exactly what he has been doing, out of necessity as he has no other material.
I’m happy to give the benefit of the doubt to LT whenever possible but I think he dropped a bollock there.
I also wonder if the reason we are only given such a brief example of the dianetics system is that the Church’s powerful tentacles reach all the way to the Beeb? I’ve always though that Jeremy Paxman had a steely determination that came from more than just political vigour...
Or maybe it’s because Louis didn’t think it was important enough? Hardly. Maybe because Marty Rathbun got upset and stopped doing it (incidentally he is a crap teacher! Getting visibly disappointed when the student doesn’t immediately see/feel/get what you intend is not the way to help relax and convince someone).
It was slightly disappointing to not see Isaac Hayes who left South Park in a strop because they were planning an episode on Scientology - when he had no problem participating in storylines concerning paedophilia, terrorism, Satan & Saddam Hussein having sex etc..
I jest, of course. And that’s obviously a mistake as it’s abundantly clear that Scientologists have no sense of humour whatsoever. I’m going to be constantly scanning my rear view mirror for a large, clumsily driven Toyota 4x4 now. That won’t stand out at all in the small towns of rural Buckinghamshire will it?
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 3 (2000) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney is now living off the map, helping women in need of a helping hand, when the killer tracks her down, she comes to help from her hiding where she will come face to face with the true killer. Dewey is now working on the set of the Stab films, he is helping one of the stars of the film understand her character and gets stuck into the investigation this time. Gale isn’t as cut throat as she once was, her career didn’t go as well as it could have, she must put up with the needy actress who is playing her in the film. Detective Mark Kincaid is the cop assigned to try and track down the killer willing to push boundaries to uncover the truth. We get a string of actors that will be playing to the roles of the characters in the franchise, with Jennifer Jolie preparing to be Gale being the highlight of these and if not the whole movie. Our suspect list is long which only adds to the mystery we might be seeing through the film.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return and give good performances through the film, they don’t build on what we know from them, Parker Posey however steals the whole movie, every scene she is in we want to see more from her. This film does suffer from having too many actors which does stop giving the stars the time required to truly shine.
Story – The story follows the production of the third ‘Stab’ movie which is from the series of films that are based on the events of the Scream films, that starts getting its own body count from a new killer with connections to Sidney’s mother. This could easily be considered the weakest story of the three so far in the franchise, this is mostly because of the idea of being on the film set with the actors and real people gets overly complicated and takes away from the suspense we previously experience. As for the twists we learn the rules that make things feel like a larger scale operation which even after seeing the previous film do fit together much like what many of the 80s slashers did.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in the film comes from the slasher side of things which are all routine enough and work for the film, with the mystery coming from just who is truly behind the murders.
Settings – Setting the film in Hollywood, mostly in and around a film set makes us relive the moments we have gotten to know through the years and most importantly show us how a film could be getting made.
Special Effects – The effects in the movie continue the style we have seen before, it gives us the blood we need to make look real without being over the top.
Scene of the Movie – The continuing reference to how difficult Scream 2 was to make.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the supporting characters, mostly the actors don’t get much screen time.
Final Thoughts – This is the third part of one of the greatest horror trilogies, it continues to show us behind the curtain of horror movies with a twist we didn’t know about to keep the story feeling fresh throughout the film.
Overall: This is how to make a trilogy.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Pretentious. Is a word that sends shivers down my spine much more than any pseudo horror movie. It conveys the idea that the creator of a work is out of control, resorting to shock value over intelligent content. If the creator meant it all, then it is not pretentious, only dangerous.
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
Aronofsky is a difficult beast, because you can’t escape the fact he might deserve to be called pretentious. Such a fierce and singular film-maker, whose hit rate for getting it right is about 1/2. Yet, you can’t deny he has a go! His films are visceral nightmares, even when he pares it down to an earthly tale like The Wrestler. He wants you to feel before thinking. Black Swan pissed people off for this reason too; lucky for him, on that occasion, it mostly worked.
At the artist’s behest, mother! is to be spelled with a small case m, and an exclamation mark. I mean, that is an indicator of this man’s intent. It annoys me, let’s make no bones about it. It also excites me, because he has to live up to it! Opening every critical door available, because if you set yourself up to make that kind of statement, then the work better back it up.
The metaphor is thinly veiled; fooling some at the start that we might be watching a latter day Rosemary’s Baby, or, at the least, an invasion film with clever horror undertones. The mood is marvelously tense in the first hour, as we observe two massively capable actors doing their jobs effortlessly. So watchable are Lawrence and Bardem, that you begin to create your own movie in your mind around what is actually happening. Your own imagination is the star of the first half of this strange film.
It almost isn’t a spoiler anymore, so I will say, that Bardem is God and Lawrence is Gaia, mother earth. Take that onboard from the start and the whole may be more “enjoyble”. Although, Aronofsky doesn’t want you to enjoy it, he wants you to react… remember that! Because in the last hour he will force you to do so, and you probably won’t want to.
As with Requiem For a Dream, you may find yourself applauding the technical skill over the storytelling. With this film as evidence, I am now convinced that his trick is to throw the kitchen sink at you in the hope you will join the dots and find something worth talking about, without him having to bother. If I provide enough spectacle, he muses, they might label me a genius someday. Well, they might. But I won’t.
Yes, it almost makes sense if you crowbar it to, but, come on, it isn’t enough! At least David Lynch makes the weirdness so abstract to defy meaning. Aronofsky is creating dreamscapes that pretend to have relevance and wind up hollow, for the simple fact that we are not fools.
Does the last act violence offend me then? No, not at all. It simply isn’t a powerful enough film to do that. Despite some fine scenes in isolation, the whole of mother! is dead in the water as the work of art it wants to be. My lasting thought of it all is… why is Michelle Pfeiffer not doing more? She is an indestructible gem…
In My Room: The Human Journey as Encountered by a Psychiatrist
Book
'The room is a space for the mind, and a metaphor for the mind at the same time. Most of us will...
Heiner Muller After Shakespeare: Macbeth and Anatomy of Titus -- Fall of Rome
William Shakespeare, Carl Weber and Heiner Muller
Book
Heiner Muller After Shakespeare makes available for the first time Macbeth and Anatomy Titus Fall of...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Daughter of Deep Silence in Books
Jan 23, 2020
You know what happens when you read a little over a hundred pages and rage for two full pages in a reading notebook?
You don't continue the book. You mark it as a DNF because you don't want to spend approximately eight pages raging and raging over a four hundred page book when you can read another book.
As you can see, I did exactly that.
But <b>never, <i>never</i> have I ever wanted to throw a book out the window <i>SO BADLY</i></b> as I want to do with <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>. This is <b>an absolute, horrifying mess disguised as a book with a gorgeous cover and an absolutely beautiful interior layout.</b> <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is really about <b>a girl who is so hell-bent on revenge, she's become obsessed and obviously needs to get a move on with her life.</b>
It's obvious from early on in the book. <b>I don't actually know much about Frances as a person</b> from the fourth of the book I read. <b>I know her plans and what happened on the <i>Persephone</i></b> with the flashbacks here and there, but I don't know Frances. The book screams <i>revenge</i>. It also screams <i>obsessed</i>, because <b>what else could it be if you're keeping a bleeping notebook on each of the family members filled with little details among details about each member?</b>
<blockquote>Over the past four years I've become an expert on Grey. An expert on everyone in the Wells family. I have the same kind of notebook on each one of them.</blockquote>
But <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> isn't just that. It's a carbon copy. <b>An absolute carbon copy of <i>Revenge</i></b>, and I mean <i>ABSOLUTE</i>. It's worse than <i><a title="Unbreakable by Kami Garcia" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unbreakable</a></i> and <i>Supernatural</i> or <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i><a title="The Testing by Joelle Charbonneau" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-testing-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Testing</a></i> and other dystopian novels put together, because there's actually <i>some</i> difference. <a title="The Moon Dwellers by David Estes" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-moon-dwellers-by-david-estes/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">There's a chance that I'll actually like the book.</a> (It's happened. I PROMISE.)
<i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>, on the other hand? <b>I don't even know where <i>Revenge</i> ends and the book actually begins</b> I can distinguish nary a difference, and I'm completely disappointed.
<b>There's revenge obviously.</b> There's a reason <i>behind</i> both Frances' and Emily's vengeance, and <b>this whole revenge idea didn't bother me at all.</b> It's only just one similarity right? <b>This could have gone on an entirely different route from early on</b> and I wouldn't have complained about a single thing. Maybe not a single thing, but there would be less rage. But I should have seen the signs from the moment I picked up the book.
<blockquote>*peruses new books shelves, sees book*
Hey, didn't I want to read this? *picks up book and reads synopsis again*
Sounds like Revenge. I'll come back and think about it. *looks at other books and chooses two more*
Screw it. Let's give this a whirl. If I don't like it, I've got plenty of papery ammunition.</blockquote>
<b>There's a disguise involved.</b> It's revealed in a later season View Spoiler »Emily is actually disguised as someone else. Frances is asked by her best friend's father to change her identity to Libby O'Martin so she can be protected and be able to find a way to exploit the truth behind the fate of <i>Persephone</i>.
<blockquote>"It's the only way to keep you sage." He pushes the ring toward me. "It's the only way to figure out who did this and make them pay."</blockquote>
<b>There's a politically powerful family.</b> Both are senators, both are planning on running for president, both are famous, both have a mansion with French doors (at least, I'm pretty sure <i>Revenge</i> had the French doors). And both have a son named...
...wait for it...
Greyson. *whistles* Imagine that! I mean, so much is similar, and the son had to be named the <i>exact same name as the one in the show I'm comparing this to?</i> You have got to be seriously kidding me. View Spoiler »I started expecting Ryan to actually throw in a secret son or something.
I just... can't. Someone pick up my horrified self off the floor. I'll wake up later. Until then, Ella or Lupe can take over.
<b><i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is <i>Revenge</i> down to the very basic formula.</b> Enough said.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
You don't continue the book. You mark it as a DNF because you don't want to spend approximately eight pages raging and raging over a four hundred page book when you can read another book.
As you can see, I did exactly that.
But <b>never, <i>never</i> have I ever wanted to throw a book out the window <i>SO BADLY</i></b> as I want to do with <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>. This is <b>an absolute, horrifying mess disguised as a book with a gorgeous cover and an absolutely beautiful interior layout.</b> <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is really about <b>a girl who is so hell-bent on revenge, she's become obsessed and obviously needs to get a move on with her life.</b>
It's obvious from early on in the book. <b>I don't actually know much about Frances as a person</b> from the fourth of the book I read. <b>I know her plans and what happened on the <i>Persephone</i></b> with the flashbacks here and there, but I don't know Frances. The book screams <i>revenge</i>. It also screams <i>obsessed</i>, because <b>what else could it be if you're keeping a bleeping notebook on each of the family members filled with little details among details about each member?</b>
<blockquote>Over the past four years I've become an expert on Grey. An expert on everyone in the Wells family. I have the same kind of notebook on each one of them.</blockquote>
But <i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> isn't just that. It's a carbon copy. <b>An absolute carbon copy of <i>Revenge</i></b>, and I mean <i>ABSOLUTE</i>. It's worse than <i><a title="Unbreakable by Kami Garcia" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Unbreakable</a></i> and <i>Supernatural</i> or <i>The Hunger Games</i> and <i><a title="The Testing by Joelle Charbonneau" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-testing-by-joelle-charbonneau/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Testing</a></i> and other dystopian novels put together, because there's actually <i>some</i> difference. <a title="The Moon Dwellers by David Estes" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-the-moon-dwellers-by-david-estes/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">There's a chance that I'll actually like the book.</a> (It's happened. I PROMISE.)
<i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i>, on the other hand? <b>I don't even know where <i>Revenge</i> ends and the book actually begins</b> I can distinguish nary a difference, and I'm completely disappointed.
<b>There's revenge obviously.</b> There's a reason <i>behind</i> both Frances' and Emily's vengeance, and <b>this whole revenge idea didn't bother me at all.</b> It's only just one similarity right? <b>This could have gone on an entirely different route from early on</b> and I wouldn't have complained about a single thing. Maybe not a single thing, but there would be less rage. But I should have seen the signs from the moment I picked up the book.
<blockquote>*peruses new books shelves, sees book*
Hey, didn't I want to read this? *picks up book and reads synopsis again*
Sounds like Revenge. I'll come back and think about it. *looks at other books and chooses two more*
Screw it. Let's give this a whirl. If I don't like it, I've got plenty of papery ammunition.</blockquote>
<b>There's a disguise involved.</b> It's revealed in a later season View Spoiler »Emily is actually disguised as someone else. Frances is asked by her best friend's father to change her identity to Libby O'Martin so she can be protected and be able to find a way to exploit the truth behind the fate of <i>Persephone</i>.
<blockquote>"It's the only way to keep you sage." He pushes the ring toward me. "It's the only way to figure out who did this and make them pay."</blockquote>
<b>There's a politically powerful family.</b> Both are senators, both are planning on running for president, both are famous, both have a mansion with French doors (at least, I'm pretty sure <i>Revenge</i> had the French doors). And both have a son named...
...wait for it...
Greyson. *whistles* Imagine that! I mean, so much is similar, and the son had to be named the <i>exact same name as the one in the show I'm comparing this to?</i> You have got to be seriously kidding me. View Spoiler »I started expecting Ryan to actually throw in a secret son or something.
I just... can't. Someone pick up my horrified self off the floor. I'll wake up later. Until then, Ella or Lupe can take over.
<b><i>Daughter of Deep Silence</i> is <i>Revenge</i> down to the very basic formula.</b> Enough said.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-review-daughter-of-deep-silence-by-carrie-ryan/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
365 Bible Stories | Daily Short Stories for Kids
Book and Education
App
365 Bible Short Stories to enjoy sharing the Bible with your kids. • An easy way to talk about...