Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
Kyera (8 KP) rated Frozen (Heart of Dread, #1) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
The story Frozen, by Melissa de la Cruz and Michael Johnston, is a tale about a girl with powers who lives in a world unlike our own. In post-apocalyptic New Vegas, Nat fins the one object that might allow her to escape the frozen landscape. The map to help her find the Blue, a promised land untainted by the cold and destruction her world knows. A place that maybe she can live a good life and not spend each day fearful that she will be discovered.
For an established YA writer, this book is surprisingly wrought with errors and would make an English major cringe. It was a poorly written novel with a multitude of punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Those completely detracted from the book and made it difficult to read the novel fluidly. There was an overuse of commas, "For days upon days she had been left in the room, alone, in total silence, with little food and water, the weight of solitude becoming ever more oppressive, the silence a heaviness that she could not shake, punishment for refusing to do as she was told, punishment for being what she was." I ran out of breath just reading that incredibly long, run on sentence. It also illustrates another example, the banal repetitiveness. Some examples would be, "She walked down the road, the road that was smooth." Or "The fire that raged within her. The fire that destroyed and consumed. The fire that would destroy and consume her..." How many times does one need to write the fire? Many of the sentences are just reworded versions of the one that came before it. Unnecessarily repetitive and it makes the book sound like a novice writer threw it together in a slap-dash manner with no editor to speak of.
It also cannot decide what genre it wishes to fall under. The magical elements and new species lend itself to a label of fantasy, like books about faeries or nymphs. Paranormal romance perhaps, for the love story that blossoms over the course of the novel? Or the more recently popular zombie novels, with their diseases and alterations of the human dNA, like Forest of Teeth and Bones? Perhaps its a post-apocalyptic or dystopian style novel, akin to Divergent or the Hunger Games - with its frozen world, scarce resources, and tyrannical governments. Whatever it is, the fact that it cannot decide makes the book quite confusing. It does not flow well as a result of the colliding and conflicting worlds. There also is no world-building, which is incredibly important to me in a book. And character building, or even character personalities? Almost non-existent. I would recommend this book to young teen readers, but not anyone who finds themselves frequently noticing errors in novels (even minor ones)as this will drive you crazy. I almost didn't finish the first chapter because the book was so poorly written, but I wanted to see if it would improve.
For an established YA writer, this book is surprisingly wrought with errors and would make an English major cringe. It was a poorly written novel with a multitude of punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors. Those completely detracted from the book and made it difficult to read the novel fluidly. There was an overuse of commas, "For days upon days she had been left in the room, alone, in total silence, with little food and water, the weight of solitude becoming ever more oppressive, the silence a heaviness that she could not shake, punishment for refusing to do as she was told, punishment for being what she was." I ran out of breath just reading that incredibly long, run on sentence. It also illustrates another example, the banal repetitiveness. Some examples would be, "She walked down the road, the road that was smooth." Or "The fire that raged within her. The fire that destroyed and consumed. The fire that would destroy and consume her..." How many times does one need to write the fire? Many of the sentences are just reworded versions of the one that came before it. Unnecessarily repetitive and it makes the book sound like a novice writer threw it together in a slap-dash manner with no editor to speak of.
It also cannot decide what genre it wishes to fall under. The magical elements and new species lend itself to a label of fantasy, like books about faeries or nymphs. Paranormal romance perhaps, for the love story that blossoms over the course of the novel? Or the more recently popular zombie novels, with their diseases and alterations of the human dNA, like Forest of Teeth and Bones? Perhaps its a post-apocalyptic or dystopian style novel, akin to Divergent or the Hunger Games - with its frozen world, scarce resources, and tyrannical governments. Whatever it is, the fact that it cannot decide makes the book quite confusing. It does not flow well as a result of the colliding and conflicting worlds. There also is no world-building, which is incredibly important to me in a book. And character building, or even character personalities? Almost non-existent. I would recommend this book to young teen readers, but not anyone who finds themselves frequently noticing errors in novels (even minor ones)as this will drive you crazy. I almost didn't finish the first chapter because the book was so poorly written, but I wanted to see if it would improve.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover (1989) in Movies
Jan 29, 2019
Intriguing Movie
A woman begins a torrid romance of infidelity and tries to keep it from her nefarious husband.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Acting: 10
There is a reason Helen Mirren is one of my favorite actresses. She can be vulnerable and powerful all in the same breath. She makes you sympathize with her character and champion for her to win. She plays Georgina, the wife of a thug. She hates her life and is longing for more. The way she expresses that longing is done in subtle fashion, yet you can feel exactly what she is feeling. There are a number of strong performances in the film, but none quite as strong as hers.
Beginning: 1
I couldn’t tell up from down when the movie started. I didn’t know what to think, who to hate, or who to root for. That all eventually became clear, but the beginning was very muddled and had me losing hope that the movie could be good. Good thing there’s more to this film than the first ten minutes.
Characters: 7
The title, of course, gives away the characters that dominate the story. Each character carries their own weight and adds a different value to the story. Outside of Georgina, I enjoyed watching Alan Howard act out his role of Michael the Lover. He has an air of ignorance with a touch of nobility. He’s a good guy that enjoys being alone, not realizing that he is looking for someone special in his life. That is, until he meets Georgina who turns his life upside down. The interactions between the two provide for a number of great scenes. And, no, I’m not just referring to the sex, although there are some steamy scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 8
Definitely not the best drama I’ve seen, but hands-down, one of the most unique. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like this movie. It’s different for a lot of reasons, but mainly in the way the film is shot which helps push the overall tone. It shines with a special kind of flare that sticks in your memory.
Memorability: 8
Pace: 5
Plot: 10
Unique story with an interesting twist. I appreciate when movies try and do something different, and that’s where (insert long title here) succeeds. It’s a gut-wrenching love story told with conviction and passion.
Resolution: 10
Can’t talk about this movie without talking about that ending. Wow, what an ending! Didn’t see it coming in the least. It was both unbelievable and gratifying at the same time. If you haven’t heard of or seen this movie, I won’t ruin it for you. I’ll just say prepare to be pleasantly shocked.
Overall: 77
A stronger beginning and a quicker pace could have made this movie excellent, but it’s still solid enough for a one-time watch. I can guarantee you The Cook, the Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover will be unlike anything you’ve ever seen before.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Operation Finale (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Fifteen years after the end of World War II there are still high ranking Nazi officials who have not been brought to justice. One of the biggest names to yet be captured is Adolph Eichmann (Ben Kingsley), the so called Architect of the Final Solution. Then in May 1960 someone in Argentina tips off the Israeli government that Eichmann may be hiding out in near Buenos Ares, Argentina. When the leader of an Israeli special unit finds out he sends an agent, Zvi Aharoni (Michael Aronov), to confirm the identity of the war criminal. When they determine that this has to be their man, a unit of operatives led by Peter Malkin (Oscar Isaac) set out to bring Eichmann to justice. In the past the unit has been able to deliver swift justice and in most cases there was no trial. But for a man that brought so much pain to so many Jewish people they must bring him to justice in the newly established state of Israel for all the world to see. Unfortunately the Argentine government would object to such an operation on its soil. So risky and daring plan for Peter to grab Eichmann near his home and get him to a safe house nearby. The would then have disguise him and Doctor Hanna Elian (Melanie Laurent) would have to keep him drugged all the way to the airport and on to awaiting plane out of the country. All of this will dodging Nazi sympathizers both in the police and roaming the streets. But for the 6 million of their people who died at the hands of men like Eichmann they must try.
This is the incredible true story of the capture of one of the top Nazi officials. The story is set up well by Director Chris Weitz (About a Boy, The Golden Compass). Ben Kingsley and Oscar Isaac give outstanding performances. Kingsley’s character and how his story develops is interesting. The entire supporting cast does well and Nick Kroll (Sing, The House) brings a surprising bit of fun to a heavy story line. Some may say the bits of humor might be a little odd given the subject matter but I thought it brought a realness and humanity to the film. The balance between the humor and showing the horror of World War II was really well done. At a little over two hours it does run a little long and there are flashback scenes that are at inconsistent times.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Not having heard this story before I enjoyed how this film was laid out for the audience. It definitely made me want to learn more about this unique true story. I think this is a film that shows the importance of people fighting to bring truth and justice to the world regardless of the odds.
This is the incredible true story of the capture of one of the top Nazi officials. The story is set up well by Director Chris Weitz (About a Boy, The Golden Compass). Ben Kingsley and Oscar Isaac give outstanding performances. Kingsley’s character and how his story develops is interesting. The entire supporting cast does well and Nick Kroll (Sing, The House) brings a surprising bit of fun to a heavy story line. Some may say the bits of humor might be a little odd given the subject matter but I thought it brought a realness and humanity to the film. The balance between the humor and showing the horror of World War II was really well done. At a little over two hours it does run a little long and there are flashback scenes that are at inconsistent times.
I was pleasantly surprised by this film. Not having heard this story before I enjoyed how this film was laid out for the audience. It definitely made me want to learn more about this unique true story. I think this is a film that shows the importance of people fighting to bring truth and justice to the world regardless of the odds.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
This Phoenix Failed To Rise From It's Ashes
Dark Phoenix is a superhero movie based on the Marvel Comics X-Men and the Dark Phoenix Saga story arc. It was produced by 20th Century Fox and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The movie was written and directed by Simon Kinberg. It stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Sophie Turner.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
In 1975, Professor Charles Xavier takes 8 year-old Jean Grey to his School for Gifted Youngsters, when she inadvertently kills her parents causing a car crash with her telekinesis. In 1992, the space shuttle Endeavor is critically damaged by a solar flare and the X-Men respond to save the astronauts. While rescuing the astronauts, Jean becomes stranded as the shuttle is struck by the energy. To save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction, she absorbs all of it into her body and as a result, her psychic powers are greatly amplified when she survives. Jean spirals out of control, wrestling with her personal demons and this increasingly unstable power that begins tearing her X-Men family apart.
This movie makes me so upset as a long time Marvel fan. If you never heard of the X-Men or watched any of the movies, you could probably say this movie was good. And honestly it was "okay" when I saw it in theaters, I guess with all the bad reviews coming out I thought, wow, it could have been worse. But no, after sitting down and discussing it with my brother and him bringing up some points as well as others that I brought up to him. As well as seeing some reviews, where critics brought up A Lot of other points as well, and this movie was actually pretty bad. Now the special effects were pretty good for the most part, and the acting was good but it was really weird because I felt that so many characters were acting out of character. Or that their motivations didn't match their actions compared to how their characters should actually be. Once again the Dark Phoenix story gets butchered and doesn't come close to the greatness of the cartoon episodes let alone the comics. Stupidest part (and I'm trying really hard to not put spoilers) was from the trailer where Cyclops says the kids are calling you Phoenix. Because after that, they couldn't say that her powers were the Phoenix because it would be like some kind of weird coincidence. The villains were very boring and dull and cliche motivations, Sophie Turner's acting wasn't bad but she just didn't pull off a believable Jean Grey. And the music was good but really out of place in times. Don't even get me started on how they totally didn't take into account how the X-Men and others powers are supposed to work. I give this movie a 5/10. It's just average.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stowaway (2021) in Movies
Apr 30, 2021
Good physics but otherwise bland and forgettable
In "Stowaway", three astronauts - Commander Marina Bartlett (Toni Collette), doctor and scientist Zoe Levensen (Anna Kendrick) and scientist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) - have left earth on a mission to Mars. Bartlett is a bit surprised when she removes an overhead panel and technician Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson) falls out on her, injuring her arm.
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
This is problematic. The ship was designed for two (with the specs pushed for three - - ed: really???!). With oxygen levels depleting, the crew are left with some difficult decisions to make.
Positives:
- For once, I have no issues with the physics of this sci-fi movie! As a PhD physicist by training, you will generally hear me huffing and puffing in sci-fi movies about loud noises in space; implausible decompressions; and the like. But here, I really liked the design of the spaceship and its implementation of artificial gravity. No massive and wasteful 'wheel' construction as in "2001: A Space Odyssey" here. Just units on the ends of a sufficiently long tether to get the right G.
- Equally - again physics related - the 'climb' and 'descent' scenes are nicely executed.
- Toni Collette adds gravitas to the (otherwise OK) cast. Shamier Anderson is also good in his emotional scenes. And the ensemble works well enough together.
Negatives:
- The screenplay is so vanilla and linear in its storytelling that you could ask me what happened in this movie in six months time and I think I would struggle to answer. When the 'stowaway' was discovered, my mind went crazy with options: was he there by accident? (which I don't think can strictly be defined as a "stowaway"); had he smuggled himself on-board deliberately?; did he have nefarious intentions towards the crew or the mission?; when push came to shove, would the 'short-straw' candidate fight back? Literally NONE of this was explored. True that we have a "will they survive" story, as the oxygen depletes, but this has been done much better in films like "Apollo 13" (with CO2 instead of O2).
- Sorry. I've never been a fan of Anna Kendrick. She's fine in fluffier fare like "Pitch Perfect" and "A Simple Favor". But as the brave and all action heroine here, I didn't buy it.
- Why have Toni Collette in a movie if you are going to give her so little to do?
Summary Thoughts on "Stowaway":
I've seen a number of extremely positive reviews of this one, which I've found a bit mystifying. I really like Sci-fi films, and particularly space-based sci-fi flicks. But this was all very "meh" for me. The premise was full of potential, but failed to deliver on much of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/30/stowaway-bland-and-forgettable-sci-fi-fare/. Thanks.).
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Ultimate Comics Spider-Man by Brian Michael Bendis, Volume 1 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
So, before I begin my review of ULTIMATE COMICS: SPIDER-MAN Vol. 1, I feel the need to confess something: there was a point in life where I was a lot less liberal, a lot less "forward thinking". I felt heroes like Miles Morales were unnecessary, examples of "lazy writing". I felt that instead of creating a non-white Spider-Man, he should have been a newly created hero, not a copy of one already in existence.
Since that time, I have experienced what I can think of no word to better describe it other than an <I>awakening</I>. Much of it was the ignorance I was raised in - a racist father, a mother who followed his ideals because she was co-dependent, lacking any autonomy. It's like a veil was lifted from my eyes and I can see/think a lot more clearly. Far more acceptance and understanding now in my life, and I quite like me much more.
Now, that said, since my <I>awakening</I>, I went and checked out the first volume, as it was on sale on Comixology. Can't think of a better reason to check out what was previously, for me, a much overlooked tpb!
Man, I just want to say that I share many of the others' feelings: this was a fun series! The 616 Spider-Man hasn't been that much fun in far too long a time! He captured the youthful innocence of the character, but also exhibiting maturity and sense of honor that was not common for his age.
Those who have known me are aware that I am not a fan of Brian Michael Bendis. I felt he excelled more with his own characters (like SCARLETT, which I loved immensely) than taking on the task of writing for existing characters. However, here, I felt that he was top of his game, offering us a Spider-Man that this world truly needs!
I don't really want to do this, as 95% of the book was beyond awesome, but the inclusion of ULTIMATE FALLOUT #4 (of 6) was the only negative thing I can offer about this book. The story is awkward as it shows us Miles already in costume, already testing out his newfound powers and abilities. I felt that it made reading Miles' story after it confusing at first. It really brought nothing to the story.
Other than that, the book was solid! Bendis' writing was hot as heck, fun yet not as overly wordy as he can be known for. And assigning Sara Pichelli the task of illustrating Miles' adventures was gold! Her pencils are always tight, giving each character their own distinct visual persona! All across the board, this book was so much win!
Don't be like I used to be: read this book, because you, too, will believe in Heroes again!
Since that time, I have experienced what I can think of no word to better describe it other than an <I>awakening</I>. Much of it was the ignorance I was raised in - a racist father, a mother who followed his ideals because she was co-dependent, lacking any autonomy. It's like a veil was lifted from my eyes and I can see/think a lot more clearly. Far more acceptance and understanding now in my life, and I quite like me much more.
Now, that said, since my <I>awakening</I>, I went and checked out the first volume, as it was on sale on Comixology. Can't think of a better reason to check out what was previously, for me, a much overlooked tpb!
Man, I just want to say that I share many of the others' feelings: this was a fun series! The 616 Spider-Man hasn't been that much fun in far too long a time! He captured the youthful innocence of the character, but also exhibiting maturity and sense of honor that was not common for his age.
Those who have known me are aware that I am not a fan of Brian Michael Bendis. I felt he excelled more with his own characters (like SCARLETT, which I loved immensely) than taking on the task of writing for existing characters. However, here, I felt that he was top of his game, offering us a Spider-Man that this world truly needs!
I don't really want to do this, as 95% of the book was beyond awesome, but the inclusion of ULTIMATE FALLOUT #4 (of 6) was the only negative thing I can offer about this book. The story is awkward as it shows us Miles already in costume, already testing out his newfound powers and abilities. I felt that it made reading Miles' story after it confusing at first. It really brought nothing to the story.
Other than that, the book was solid! Bendis' writing was hot as heck, fun yet not as overly wordy as he can be known for. And assigning Sara Pichelli the task of illustrating Miles' adventures was gold! Her pencils are always tight, giving each character their own distinct visual persona! All across the board, this book was so much win!
Don't be like I used to be: read this book, because you, too, will believe in Heroes again!
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter (2000) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn 3: The Hangman’s Daughter
Characters – Johnny Madrid is one of the most feared outlaws in the west, about to be executed, he is rescued and returns to his gang to continue his life of crime, he will kill some people, while protecting others, making him a morally confusing figure. Ambrose Bierce has come from America where he has survived a shooting, he wants peaceful life only to find himself in the middle of the battle. The Hangman is trying to eliminate the threats in the gang world including Johnny, mostly to protect his daughter, only it isn’t for him to choose. Esmeralda is his daughter that has been getting controlled for too long and is in love with Johnny, she goes on the run with him only to be left questioning his choices.
Performances – The performances here are poor once again, Marco Leonardi overplays is role in the film, while Michael Parks does the best he can with his role. We do end up meeting too many random characters that just seems to make everything struggle to get going in the performance side of the film.
Story – The story does return to the original format only in the western era, we have the outlaws, the victims and the authorities all ending up in the bar which is crawling with vampires and must put their difference aside to survive. This style did work first time, it doesn’t fail this time, but it is hard to become invested in the characters. the build up before the bar is a lot of filler because we do have a lot of people to learn their place and mentality which makes it hard to figure out who is the good and bad guys for the piece. We try to have a connection to the original movie with the creation of one of the vampires which better than the last time out too.
Horror/Western – The horror involved in the film is returning to the vampire outlet which again doesn’t feel scary as it could have been. The western side of the film just uses the criminal side of the last one only making it a prequel to the original.
Settings – The film is set in the western area, we do eventually hit the saloon made famous from the first film and this time we get to dive into the larger scale of the building.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the best, we do get a couple of good moments only nothing that reaches the levels of the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – To many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough prequel, at least it does feel connected to the previous film which helps build on the legacy of the bar.
Overall: Simple prequel.
Characters – Johnny Madrid is one of the most feared outlaws in the west, about to be executed, he is rescued and returns to his gang to continue his life of crime, he will kill some people, while protecting others, making him a morally confusing figure. Ambrose Bierce has come from America where he has survived a shooting, he wants peaceful life only to find himself in the middle of the battle. The Hangman is trying to eliminate the threats in the gang world including Johnny, mostly to protect his daughter, only it isn’t for him to choose. Esmeralda is his daughter that has been getting controlled for too long and is in love with Johnny, she goes on the run with him only to be left questioning his choices.
Performances – The performances here are poor once again, Marco Leonardi overplays is role in the film, while Michael Parks does the best he can with his role. We do end up meeting too many random characters that just seems to make everything struggle to get going in the performance side of the film.
Story – The story does return to the original format only in the western era, we have the outlaws, the victims and the authorities all ending up in the bar which is crawling with vampires and must put their difference aside to survive. This style did work first time, it doesn’t fail this time, but it is hard to become invested in the characters. the build up before the bar is a lot of filler because we do have a lot of people to learn their place and mentality which makes it hard to figure out who is the good and bad guys for the piece. We try to have a connection to the original movie with the creation of one of the vampires which better than the last time out too.
Horror/Western – The horror involved in the film is returning to the vampire outlet which again doesn’t feel scary as it could have been. The western side of the film just uses the criminal side of the last one only making it a prequel to the original.
Settings – The film is set in the western area, we do eventually hit the saloon made famous from the first film and this time we get to dive into the larger scale of the building.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the best, we do get a couple of good moments only nothing that reaches the levels of the first film.
Scene of the Movie – Escape.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – To many characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough prequel, at least it does feel connected to the previous film which helps build on the legacy of the bar.
Overall: Simple prequel.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 18, 2023
The Best DCEU Film Since the original WONDER WOMAN
At this point in time, the average movie-going public is suffering from “Super-Hero” fatigue, and (more than likely) “multi-verse” fatigue because the latest entries in this genre all are tapping the same type of experience (in order to pull in properties/characters from other films). It’s a smart strategy from a Movie Executive point-of-view as they can bring in other, generally liked/loved characters from previous films/entities.
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)