Search
Search results
Ross (3282 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 30, 2018
Non-stop action (2 more)
Tugs at the heart strings
Moments of goosebumps
Scenes in Edinburgh Waverley station reminded me of my morning commute and therefore work :( (1 more)
Obvious impermanence
Just stops short of perfect
Contains spoilers, click to show
Contains spoilers, look away now.
You have been warned.
OK, here goes. On leaving the cinema I felt a mix of emotions. Excitement at the events I had witnessed, Anxiety for the wait for the next film, Thoughtful over the conclusion (Thanos, work complete, settling down for some time on the farm). But no sadness. Not a jot. I had just watched some of my favourite characters perish: the excellent new incarnation of Spider-man, the strong principled leader of Black Panther, all of GotG except the rabbit one, etc etc. One click of Thanos' fingers and they were gone. But ... I just didn't really care. I knew that the next film is going to involve another click of his (or more likely someone else's - my money is on Nebula) fingers and all his actions will be un-done and it turns out nobody died after all, because Disney.
The fact that it was all the new members of the team/universe that perished and all the original avengers survived (hawkeye TBC) was a total cop-out. I am so bored of Captain America and Iron Man (though I like Stark's comedy quips), and Hulk is fatally flawed as a hero due to being totally uncontrollable. Prior to Ragnarok I strongly disliked Thor, but now I do seem to dislike him less. Plus it is hard to see how any of those are strong enough to overpower Thanos and fix what he has done (if it comes down to a sombre, from-the-heart Cap speech that makes Thanos see the error of his ways then the cinema will see ROSS SMASH).
The whole movie is outstanding, don't get me wrong. The action, the pacing, the different new interactions, the story and backstory and the humour. Oh my, the humour. I think this is possibly the funniest MCU film yet - the writers really have nailed the one-liners this time. It could be that there is more tension and the humour cuts through it, that you notice it more, but so funny. The scenes with Spider-man (IRON SPIDER!!!), Iron Man and Star Lord and Drax were awesome.
Outstanding moments for me:
Thor's appearance in Wakanda (kicking names and taking asses) - proper goose-bumps
The first conflict in New York - Spidey, Iron Man and Dr Strange against Ebony Maw
The battle on Titan
Annoying moments for me:
Star-Lord ruining everything - twice! All he had to do was kill Gamora when she asked him to (before Thanos realised and made his gun shoot bubbles!). And then when they were so close to getting the gauntlet off Thanos (I was convinced they would get it off and Nebula would take it and be so much worse than Thanos). I guess this showed the human side and how emotional attachments are what define us blah blah but it was another moment where an illogical action from one person ruined the endeavours.
Still, the emotional rollercoaster was better than I expected and I am so looking forward to Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel and part 2.
You have been warned.
OK, here goes. On leaving the cinema I felt a mix of emotions. Excitement at the events I had witnessed, Anxiety for the wait for the next film, Thoughtful over the conclusion (Thanos, work complete, settling down for some time on the farm). But no sadness. Not a jot. I had just watched some of my favourite characters perish: the excellent new incarnation of Spider-man, the strong principled leader of Black Panther, all of GotG except the rabbit one, etc etc. One click of Thanos' fingers and they were gone. But ... I just didn't really care. I knew that the next film is going to involve another click of his (or more likely someone else's - my money is on Nebula) fingers and all his actions will be un-done and it turns out nobody died after all, because Disney.
The fact that it was all the new members of the team/universe that perished and all the original avengers survived (hawkeye TBC) was a total cop-out. I am so bored of Captain America and Iron Man (though I like Stark's comedy quips), and Hulk is fatally flawed as a hero due to being totally uncontrollable. Prior to Ragnarok I strongly disliked Thor, but now I do seem to dislike him less. Plus it is hard to see how any of those are strong enough to overpower Thanos and fix what he has done (if it comes down to a sombre, from-the-heart Cap speech that makes Thanos see the error of his ways then the cinema will see ROSS SMASH).
The whole movie is outstanding, don't get me wrong. The action, the pacing, the different new interactions, the story and backstory and the humour. Oh my, the humour. I think this is possibly the funniest MCU film yet - the writers really have nailed the one-liners this time. It could be that there is more tension and the humour cuts through it, that you notice it more, but so funny. The scenes with Spider-man (IRON SPIDER!!!), Iron Man and Star Lord and Drax were awesome.
Outstanding moments for me:
Thor's appearance in Wakanda (kicking names and taking asses) - proper goose-bumps
The first conflict in New York - Spidey, Iron Man and Dr Strange against Ebony Maw
The battle on Titan
Annoying moments for me:
Star-Lord ruining everything - twice! All he had to do was kill Gamora when she asked him to (before Thanos realised and made his gun shoot bubbles!). And then when they were so close to getting the gauntlet off Thanos (I was convinced they would get it off and Nebula would take it and be so much worse than Thanos). I guess this showed the human side and how emotional attachments are what define us blah blah but it was another moment where an illogical action from one person ruined the endeavours.
Still, the emotional rollercoaster was better than I expected and I am so looking forward to Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel and part 2.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Lost In Translation (2003) in Movies
May 13, 2018
Solid Film
When a famous actor hops over to Tokyo to shoot a commercial, he meets a young woman that fills an empty void in his life.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
My son hates dramas and rightfully so as he's a thirteen-year-old boy. He wants to see things blowing up and people getting thrown through walls. Yet somehow, the first ten minutes of Lost In Translation sucked him in as much as it did me prompting him to watch the whole thing. From the time he touches down in Tokyo, Bob Harris (Bill Murray) sucks you in and holds on to your attention for dear life. You're anxious to see what this man is going to do next.
Characters: 10
Staying on Bob for a moment, his character made the film. His dry sense of humor and pure disinterest in everything going on around him is so sincere and captured just perfectly. He's torn between his sense of duty with work and family, so much so that he's almost forgotten how to enjoy life. When Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) comes along, everything changes for him. Charlotte is innocent and sweet and is somehow drawn to Bob like a moth to a flame. Like most "opposites attract" relationships, the two fit extremely well together and add a sense of appeal to the film. Watching them both interact with the Japanese people and try to bridge cultural and language gaps was easy comedy that works everytime.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 7
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
There are a number of memorable scenes that stick out in my head with a couple of favorites I keep replaying. The first is where he's trying to shoot his commercial. The director is trying to relay something to Bob in Japanese which a translator is telling Bob in English. The scene is only five minutes long and had me cracking up from start to finish. In my other favorite scene, Bob has a run-in in his hotel room with a Japanese prostitute. Again, the language disparity makes the entire interaction one hilarious situation.
Outside of memorable scenes, Lost In Translation gives you a pause for introspection and contemplative thought. Oftentimes we wander aimlessly through the relationships in our lives...but what do they really mean? What are relationships without happiness or closeness? What is the real meaning of a connection?
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Had this film's story taken place in North America somewhere, it wouldn't have been nearly as impactful. With the setting in Japan, it throws a monkey-wrench into a plot that could have been extremely simple and makes it way more intriguing. Are Bob and Charlotte truly falling for each other or are they just connecting because they are lonely and so far from home? Definite food for thought.
Resolution: 8
Ah, the famous ending of Lost In Translation. What did she say? What does it all mean? How does the story end anyway? The ending, while it does leave you hanging, is an intriguing one for sure. I understand the ambiguity and I don't love it, but I'm ok with it.
Overall: 92
Bill Murray is like the Marvel Cinematic Universe...on steroids. They have been putting out hits for a decade now. Murray has been starring in classics for decades. This film is another notch on his belt. Loved it!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It’s not as bad as you might think…
It feels like everyone has something to say about Venom. Amongst critics and fans, it’s caused a lot of debate and controversy. Whenever this happens, I tend to find myself becoming even more curious about the film because if everyone else has strong words to say, maybe I will too?
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Before I begin my review I just want to put in a quick disclaimer: I am by no means a comic book expert, and I don’t claim to be Marvel’s number one fan. If anything I’m a casual fan. So this review is coming from the mind of a film lover and nothing more. Now that’s out of the way…
Venom was quick to grab my attention when it was first announced, as I’m always interested when Marvel move into darker, grittier territories. I have a soft spot for villains and Venom’s character is definitely one of the coolest ones in the franchise. There are few things scarier than the thought of a parasite taking over your body, so the horror elements definitely drew me towards the film. Visually, Venom does utilise things we would associate with horror, such as long, lingering shots and sudden jumpy moments. Whilst they’re nothing new or particularly outstanding, I did enjoy this side to the film. Symbiotes as a concept are terrifying, so it only seemed fair to portray them in this way.
Tom Hardy gives a great performance as Eddie Brock, especially during his interactions with Venom. The comedic side to this film was genuinely funny, and gave the audience some light relief after the more horrifying scenes. This dynamic between Eddie and Venom is what really stood out to me, as they owned the vast majority of screen time and had to keep the audience entertained. For me, it worked and it had some serious laugh-out-loud moments.
Some of the scenes are a bit ridiculous, but I’ve quickly learned to expect a bit of implausibility when it comes to comic book movies. I wasn’t bothered by some of the sillier scenes, though I can see why someone would want to criticise them. The one thing I was bothered by, however, was the plot holes and confusing lines within the film that, so I felt this did weaken the script in places. I’m certainly in agreement that the writing was lazy overall. Nonetheless, I was still entertained by 90% of the film and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. The action scenes were fun, chaotic, and made even better by Venom’s presence inside Eddie’s head. Without that, I might not have enjoyed them as much.
I liked the visual effects throughout the film, and was particularly creeped out by the way the symbiote looked before it finds a host. The scenes set within The Life Foundation’s facility stood out to me, reminiscent of other films where science ‘goes wrong’. It’s clinical, confusing and isolating, making you feel just as uncomfortable and scared as those undergoing the trials. I really enjoyed the twisted side to this narrative, showing us a dark side to corporations as films often do.
Is Venom the best film I’ve seen this year? Of course it’s not. But it was a fun way to spend 2 hours on a Sunday evening and that’s good enough for me. It’s a very average, very three star film that kept me entertained. It’s nothing more than that, and to me, that’s okay.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/venom-its-not-as-bad-as-you-might-think/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Tony Stark is a billionaire playboy engineer who has been developing the latest weapons to defend the home land, he looks down on most the people he meets including the soldiers showing around the warzone. He gets captured and designs a weapon that sees him escape, he makes himself Iron Man which will keep him alive, which sees him looking at life through different eyes, where he doesn’t want to supply weapons in conflict. Rhodey is the military best friend of Tony’s he uses the weapons created to help his men, he can get tired of Tony’s partying lifestyle. Obadiah Stane ran Stark enterprise after Tony’s parents death, he has mentored Tony in business, but is left with a difficult decision after Tony’s decision to stop making weapons. Pepper Potts is Tony’s assistant, she handles the affairs while he gets on with his business.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is fantastic in the leading role, we can believe his confidence and cocky nature that he is showing through the film. Terrence Howard is playing a more grounded character, he would go onto be replaced in this role, he just doesn’t have the complete opposite against that Robert brings. Jeff Bridges is strong as the villainous businessman who is controlled by greed. Gwyneth Paltrow does a solid job as Pepper, where she is going to become a character we get to know through the franchise.
Story – The story shows us how Tony Stark went from businessman to Iron Man after learning the cost of his weapons which are being used on both sides of the war and must stop the man running his family’s company into the ground with these action. For origin stories we get to see the change in Tony’s mentality over the course of the story which is what will make somebody a hero. We don’t get the completely over the top destruction, with most of the fight scenes blending into the story where we see Tony learning how to control his suit. We get the first steps into the Marvel Cinematic Universe which brings the franchise to life with this just needing to give the hero an early villain that will make him a new hero in the world.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film comes war sequences and how Tony learns about his suits capabilities, the first mission shows what we are going to see in the future. The sci-fi elements in this film comes from how the suit is created to keep Tony alive and the new levels of technology involved.
Settings – The film takes us to a couple of locations, Miami where Tony lives shows his playboy lifestyle, the Afghan locations show how the war is being fought with the two different sides and the same weapons.
Special Effects – The effects used in this film show us the scale of what Tony will have do to survive, we have the idea of his heart that never looks out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Iron Man’s first mission.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Rhodey isn’t the most interesting character in this film.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful beginning to the franchise which would go onto change how cinema is experienced, it has the origin of an unknown character to the casual fans of comic book movies, which works for laughs and action, without being a comedy.
Overall: Fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is fantastic in the leading role, we can believe his confidence and cocky nature that he is showing through the film. Terrence Howard is playing a more grounded character, he would go onto be replaced in this role, he just doesn’t have the complete opposite against that Robert brings. Jeff Bridges is strong as the villainous businessman who is controlled by greed. Gwyneth Paltrow does a solid job as Pepper, where she is going to become a character we get to know through the franchise.
Story – The story shows us how Tony Stark went from businessman to Iron Man after learning the cost of his weapons which are being used on both sides of the war and must stop the man running his family’s company into the ground with these action. For origin stories we get to see the change in Tony’s mentality over the course of the story which is what will make somebody a hero. We don’t get the completely over the top destruction, with most of the fight scenes blending into the story where we see Tony learning how to control his suit. We get the first steps into the Marvel Cinematic Universe which brings the franchise to life with this just needing to give the hero an early villain that will make him a new hero in the world.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film comes war sequences and how Tony learns about his suits capabilities, the first mission shows what we are going to see in the future. The sci-fi elements in this film comes from how the suit is created to keep Tony alive and the new levels of technology involved.
Settings – The film takes us to a couple of locations, Miami where Tony lives shows his playboy lifestyle, the Afghan locations show how the war is being fought with the two different sides and the same weapons.
Special Effects – The effects used in this film show us the scale of what Tony will have do to survive, we have the idea of his heart that never looks out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Iron Man’s first mission.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Rhodey isn’t the most interesting character in this film.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful beginning to the franchise which would go onto change how cinema is experienced, it has the origin of an unknown character to the casual fans of comic book movies, which works for laughs and action, without being a comedy.
Overall: Fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Mar 2, 2020
More classic literature retold for the modern audience, this time with a very distinctive and chaotic style.
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
Young David Copperfield is sent off into the world by his step-father. Unaware of the real woes of the world he must keep his spirits up as his surroundings changes to a much harsher nature. As he grows he's still a creative and happy-go-lucky young man but has he found himself in the place he truly wants to be?
I had to keep reminding myself that the film we were watching was being told to us by David himself, the chaotic nature throughout would have been, in part, down to his natural chaotic energy. It did become overwhelming at times though and starting the film with so many transitions was quite off putting.
I don't remember the last time I saw a cast this diverse, and that's a great thing but the cynical side of me did briefly wonder if it was diversity for the sake of that bit of recognition. Ugh, I hate thinking that, and it's in no way a reflection on the cast as they're all excellent actors, but I didn't feel like some of the character dynamics worked together. That may also have something to do with the frantic nature of everything else going on though.
There's definite theatre in this, each scene feels like it takes place in a confined space, like that of a stage, until it opens up at the end to its infinite future and possibilities.
Everything in this period drama feels wrong for a traditional period drama. The cities would normally be drab and dank but everything has a surprisingly light and airy nature to it, a quirk of David's optimism maybe? Each location was stunning though and designed perfectly for its needs. The Micawber's home being accessible from almost every angle to allow for the tussles with the creditors, and Mr Dick's room as a reflection of the chaos in his head. There was much to marvel at but so little time to see it as it fought for attention with the constantly moving script.
Dev Patel feels like the perfect choice for the role of Copperfield, the excitement and optimism in it is not that far off his portrayal of Sonny Kapoor in The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. He brought the energy needed to keep up with the pace and it made for an entertaining lead.
Was this just too much though? So much story crammed into just 2 hours of screen time. Too many great actors never really getting a chance to make an impact [a very similar feeling to the Knives Out's roster]. A pace that was akin to a 2 hour version of Clue's multiple endings. Too much, I was exhausted after seeing it.
Having only seen Iannucci's directing before in Death Of Stalin I'm unsure as to whether this pacing issue is something common to him, I genuinely don't remember that being quite this chaotic, but that alone was enough to put me off. The experience felt rushed and that's never how I want to feel when I watch a film.
Originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-personal-history-of-david.html
BookInspector (124 KP) rated Grim Ambition (A Grim Trilogy #1) in Books
Sep 24, 2020
This book was offered to me by Jennifer Reinfried, and even though I’m not big fan of “Marvel” and super heroes, I got interested in this book, because the “bad girl” was involved into finding out, who Grim was. That was what drew me to this book, and it was quite a nice read for me. This is a book about good and evil, and that sometimes evil can swap sides. The description of the book is quite detailed, so I don’t see a need to add anything.
This book is full of diverse characters, and any reader will have a variety to choose from as their favourites. In this case my most favourite was Alex, the cruel and vicious right hand of Mafia’s head Vance. Let me explain you why. From all of the characters, he was the most interesting one. He had everything what great villain would need: cruel, ruthless, smart, cunning, good looking and a little bit psychotic. I personally think he was the best rounded character from all of them. I believe that Shawn needed to be a little bit more extraordinary, so knowing how to drive a car and how to shoot, when you are blind would’ve been something “wow”. Emma, was my least favourite one. She was not smart, and her way up was literary though bed, her way into infiltration through seduction and bed. She chose the easiest ways which made her really boring to me. Jaxon was quite interesting as well. It was visible that he knows more than he gives away, and he has plenty of secrets to share with the readers in upcoming books. I was really glad, that author wrote this book including more than one character. More voices in the book helps to understand the characters better, and made it more interesting for me, as a reader.
There was a whole short story about Henry, the lawyer, but in the book he disappears quite quickly. It was quite strange to me. The characters have quite a short life span in this book, that’s why I’m interested to see what author has “up her sleeve”. This story has some great twists and turns, which keeps the interest going. I really liked the flashbacks from Shawn’s past, and I think, that in another parts of this sequel, it will unfold even more. As I mentioned before, this book is not typical super hero book, Grim has his flaws and his strengths, the girl who was devoted mafia’s poppet got confused in what she is going to do further, so that’s quite unusual and at the same time refreshing. I really loved, that at the end of the book, author put the portraits of the main characters that was absolutely awesome. I loved, that I could compare them with the ones of my imagination.
The writing style of this book is easy to understand, but it contains some erotic scenes, so it is not suitable for younger readers. The chapters are not long in this book, so it doesn’t drag along. There is quite a lot of action going on in the book, so it is fun to read it. The ending of the book is quite well thought through, and it leaves that cliff hanger to keep you guessing of what will happen next. So to conclude, if you looking for some super hero action, which is different and refreshing, give it a go and you might be surprised. I am really interested to see, what other parts of this series will bring.
This book is full of diverse characters, and any reader will have a variety to choose from as their favourites. In this case my most favourite was Alex, the cruel and vicious right hand of Mafia’s head Vance. Let me explain you why. From all of the characters, he was the most interesting one. He had everything what great villain would need: cruel, ruthless, smart, cunning, good looking and a little bit psychotic. I personally think he was the best rounded character from all of them. I believe that Shawn needed to be a little bit more extraordinary, so knowing how to drive a car and how to shoot, when you are blind would’ve been something “wow”. Emma, was my least favourite one. She was not smart, and her way up was literary though bed, her way into infiltration through seduction and bed. She chose the easiest ways which made her really boring to me. Jaxon was quite interesting as well. It was visible that he knows more than he gives away, and he has plenty of secrets to share with the readers in upcoming books. I was really glad, that author wrote this book including more than one character. More voices in the book helps to understand the characters better, and made it more interesting for me, as a reader.
There was a whole short story about Henry, the lawyer, but in the book he disappears quite quickly. It was quite strange to me. The characters have quite a short life span in this book, that’s why I’m interested to see what author has “up her sleeve”. This story has some great twists and turns, which keeps the interest going. I really liked the flashbacks from Shawn’s past, and I think, that in another parts of this sequel, it will unfold even more. As I mentioned before, this book is not typical super hero book, Grim has his flaws and his strengths, the girl who was devoted mafia’s poppet got confused in what she is going to do further, so that’s quite unusual and at the same time refreshing. I really loved, that at the end of the book, author put the portraits of the main characters that was absolutely awesome. I loved, that I could compare them with the ones of my imagination.
The writing style of this book is easy to understand, but it contains some erotic scenes, so it is not suitable for younger readers. The chapters are not long in this book, so it doesn’t drag along. There is quite a lot of action going on in the book, so it is fun to read it. The ending of the book is quite well thought through, and it leaves that cliff hanger to keep you guessing of what will happen next. So to conclude, if you looking for some super hero action, which is different and refreshing, give it a go and you might be surprised. I am really interested to see, what other parts of this series will bring.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated New X-Men: Childhood's End, Volume 1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
In an era where Marvel tries to oversaturate the comics market with event after event, and renumbering, along with the line between heroes and villains blurred so much it is draining (and not just my account!).
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...
..which brings my attention backwards, to 2006's NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END.
I skipped out when the series first launched as NEW X-MEN: ACADEMY X. It seemed generic and the stories I flipped through did nothing to grab my attention. It wasn't until the rebranding of the series as NEW X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END, with Craig Kyle and Christopher Yost taking over the writing as well providng a new revolving artist lineup.
While this first volume was a bit hard to follow, what with the jumping back forth with flashbacks and time rollbacks, but the second reading made more sense. I don't know that I would have written it out that way, but then again, it wasn't my book.
One of the things that really clicked for me was having Kyle and Yost on board. As the creators of Laura Kinney (X-23), I thought her introduction to the team would be handled well. Let's just say I was left feeling quite good, enough so that I will be reading the remaining volumes in the series.
The way she is written is as a lost girl. Logan wants her on the team, as it will help her to integrate, learn more about non-violent interaction. She is resistant at first mention, but then she comes around. However, despite her joining the New X-Men class, it is not an easy ride as she is withdrawn, though we do see the first sparks of interest on her part in Hellion. Unfortunately, her fellow classmates don't make it that easy for her to want to interaction, opting to go the route that most new students are treated in RL. So yeah, makes sense.
The only thing I didn't really like was Laura was referred to as either X-23 or Laura X, instead of Laura Kinney. I am not sure why that was, but as much I found it disappointing, it did not detract the story any. More often that not, when it came up in a panel, I would just read as "Laura" (minus the "X") or Laura Kinney. Easy fix, eh?
The art chores of the first volume went to Mark Brooks. I usually like his art, but sometimes (like in X-FORCE) he would give Laura a bust line not befitting a character like that. Here, though, everything was perfect, aiding in setting the darker "M-Day" and post-"M-Day" mood. I quite liked it, suited the content 100%.
Last thing I want to add is this: WOW! EMMA FROST IS A MEGA SALTY BITCH! Her treatment of Laura was totally uncalled for and way off base. Heck, she used to be the White Queen, yet she is now an X-Men. Everyone deserves a chance, even a former assassin (well, in fairness, it was how she was raised/trained, she really knew nothing else).
So, and including bitchy Emma, I give X-MEN: CHILDHOOD'S END VOL ! 5 out 5 SNIKTs! Not bad! Now, onto Volume Two...