Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Haunting in Connecticut: 2 Ghosts of Georgia (2013) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Lisa is the wife and mother of the family, she does have an ability to see spirits with her mother helping her through these experiences. In her new home she starts to see more spirits that has trying to send her messages and must use her skills to figure out how to save her child. Andy is the husband and father, he is the only one that doesn’t have the ability to see the spirits which shows him taking on the situation as if there would need to be a logical reason behind it all. Heidi is the daughter of the family, that can also see the spirits and it is her visits which guide us to where the story goes this time, she is encouraged by her Auntie and discouraged by her mum. Joyce is the free-spirited Auntie that joins the family, she tries to embrace the idea of the spirits needing help and will guide Heide unlike her sister.
Performances – This is a sequel with no returning cast members, no connection to the original, so the cast is brand new. We do have a couple of known actors from television, Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray and Katee Sackhoff, they do what they can with the material, but the poor decisions they are forced to make doesn’t help. Emily Alyn Lind does well for a child star put in horror situation.
Story – The story is based on real events or sold on this idea anyway. We have the events of the story taking place over short amount of time, as we see how everything seems to escalate, which is fine for a horror story. the idea the sisters and daughter can see spirits naturally is a good spin on the idea where only one can usually see the ghosts. The problems do some into this too as the one person who can’t see the spirits still sees them and most of the decisions being made are poor throughout. For the mystery behind everything it does keep us interested throughout and does give us shocks along the way.
Horror/Mystery – When it comes to the horror in this film we get plenty of the normal jump scares, most of which just play out like you would imagine, the casual fan will jump along the way. The highlight is the mystery behind what is causing the hauntings because history is always filled with surprises.
Settings – The setting for the film is good because it is an old house that is bound to be filled with history that could be a terrifying as what we learn as the film unfolds.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are mixed because the way the flashbacks are shot does look do and feels different to current events, the negatives come from how the injuries can look while inflicted to the modern characters.
Scene of the Movie – Cut the cord.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The moments Andy saw a ghost.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough sequel even though it has no connection to the actual first film, it does have smart ideas but terrible character decisions.
Overall: Horror fans should enjoy.
Performances – This is a sequel with no returning cast members, no connection to the original, so the cast is brand new. We do have a couple of known actors from television, Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray and Katee Sackhoff, they do what they can with the material, but the poor decisions they are forced to make doesn’t help. Emily Alyn Lind does well for a child star put in horror situation.
Story – The story is based on real events or sold on this idea anyway. We have the events of the story taking place over short amount of time, as we see how everything seems to escalate, which is fine for a horror story. the idea the sisters and daughter can see spirits naturally is a good spin on the idea where only one can usually see the ghosts. The problems do some into this too as the one person who can’t see the spirits still sees them and most of the decisions being made are poor throughout. For the mystery behind everything it does keep us interested throughout and does give us shocks along the way.
Horror/Mystery – When it comes to the horror in this film we get plenty of the normal jump scares, most of which just play out like you would imagine, the casual fan will jump along the way. The highlight is the mystery behind what is causing the hauntings because history is always filled with surprises.
Settings – The setting for the film is good because it is an old house that is bound to be filled with history that could be a terrifying as what we learn as the film unfolds.
Special Effects – The effects in this film are mixed because the way the flashbacks are shot does look do and feels different to current events, the negatives come from how the injuries can look while inflicted to the modern characters.
Scene of the Movie – Cut the cord.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The moments Andy saw a ghost.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid enough sequel even though it has no connection to the actual first film, it does have smart ideas but terrible character decisions.
Overall: Horror fans should enjoy.
Debbiereadsbook (1097 KP) rated Retribution (The Protectors #3) in Books
Apr 15, 2019
My fav of the three so far!
*verified Audible purchase June 2017*
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
This is book three in the Protectors series. You don’t NEED to have read/listened to books one and two, but I think you SHOULD. It will give you a better picture of this group of people and what they do, and how Hawke came to at the head. And you know, FIVE star listens, people!
For ten years, Hawke has been searching for the men who killed his wife and unborn son. Meeting Tate makes him feel again, something he didn’t think was possible. He certainly never thought it possible he would feel for a MAN.
I loved books one and two, and I loved this one too! I again cannot split the narration from the story, so not even gonna try. So I apologise if this review jumps around a bit!
Hawke loved his wife, bone deep, and when she was murdered, it broke. He’s spent the last ten years as head of an organisation that delivers justice to those let down by the law. The revenge for his wife’s death is a long time coming but he’s getting close and Tate is his link. His reaction to Tate is . . . unexpected. And when Hawke realises why Tate is running, his protectiveness goes into overdrive.
It’s no secret I’m not a fan of READING first person books, particularly if they are multi person but I find I’m really enjoying LISTENING to first person books, ESPECIALLY if they are multi point of view! Joel Leslie is a MASTER at his craft, at narrating multi point of view, in the first person! I simply CANNOT fault the narration. The way Leslie gets every single heart wrenching thought that Hawke has: thinking about his wife, ad what his growing feelings for Tate mean. Every fear that Tate has: that his father will find him, that Hawke might hurt him, that he might lose his little boy. This is not a short listen, over 8 hours and I listened to it in one single siting. I tried to stop, I really did but I needed to know what would happen, how this would play out. It takes a single question from Ronan (Salvation, book 2) to break Hawke. The same question broke me too! And I sobbed at that point, great heart wrenching sobs at the emotion that Leslie pours out of Hawke.
Of course, Leslie can only narrate the words given him, but Kennedy is fast becoming a favourite of mine. The way she intertwines multi level stories, from book to book, is amazing. Sometimes, series lose their . . .what’s the word . . .ethos, as it moves along but not so here. They hold true to their meaning, and I cannot wait to see where this series goes.
I LOVE that I have 9 more books to get through BUT I’ve discovered that Michael Pauley narrates book 4, Forsaken, and I’m not sure how I feel about that! I’ll buy it, without a doubt, but it will be interesting to see how Pauley portrays the voices that Leslie has done up to now.
So, because I can’t split the narration, because I listened in one day, and just bloody I can . . .
5 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
5 stars overall
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 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 Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Debbiereadsbook (1097 KP) rated Nothing Serious in Books
Jul 15, 2019
really kinda cute!
Independent reviewer for Divine Magazine, I was gifted the AUDIO file of this book.
Mark finally admits to himself and his partner of 9 years, that he is gay. While Rachel is devastated, she knows things have not been right between them for a long time. Mark moving out of their home seems the best thing to do, but they will remain friends. On moving day, Jamie shows up with his brother, and Mark feels an immediate attraction to the younger man. When Jamie drops a box contains some. . .personal items, Mark is mortified but Jamie finds the blush on Mark’s face adorable, and all kinds of sexy. But neither man is looking for anything serious right now, so they can just help each other out, right?
This book, right here, landed in my queue just when I needed it to, cos its far too stinking cute for its own good!
It’s a wonderfully well written tale of a newly out of the closet man, finding himself and all about his sexuality, with a willing young man who wants to help. Jamie finds Mark attractive, but he doesn’t want anything serious, last time he ran away when *serious* was talked about, so helping Mark explore all the joys of sex with a man, seems a good way to get close to Mark, while keeping his distance.
Mark has an immediate attraction to Jamie, and when Jamie suggests a friends with benefits type arrangement, Mark is keen to get to know Jamie.
What neither man expected, or wanted, was their emotions to get involved, and when they both realise this is what was happening, Mark and Jamie struggle with ways to talk to each other about it!
It’s not overly explicit, but it is all kinds of sexy! There is no real drama, save the guys finally admitting to themselves, at least, what they feel for each other.
It really is one of those books you just fall into and lose a few hours. It’s only short, some 154 pages, but it packs a hefty punch of cuteness! I listened to this, it’s just over 4 hours.
Michael Pauley narrates.
I have, in the past, found Pauley a bit hit and miss, for me, personally. Here, however, he really nails it!
Pauley’s voices for Mark and Jamie are different enough to be easily identifiable when they are talking, for all the characters, actually. His reading voice is clear and even, and I had no trouble keeping up. There were no dips in the sound to put me off, which has happened with Pauley before. It’s just where he lowers his voice, for thinking or musing, really but here, there is no dipping.
I loved how Pauley gets all the things running around in Mark and Jamie’s heads across, you genuinely sort of fall in love with them, as they fall in love with each other!
I’ve shelved it on my *kinda creeps up on ya* shelf, simply because, that’s what happens!
Love creeps up on Mark and Jamie and it was a pleasure listening to that happen.
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
4.5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Mark finally admits to himself and his partner of 9 years, that he is gay. While Rachel is devastated, she knows things have not been right between them for a long time. Mark moving out of their home seems the best thing to do, but they will remain friends. On moving day, Jamie shows up with his brother, and Mark feels an immediate attraction to the younger man. When Jamie drops a box contains some. . .personal items, Mark is mortified but Jamie finds the blush on Mark’s face adorable, and all kinds of sexy. But neither man is looking for anything serious right now, so they can just help each other out, right?
This book, right here, landed in my queue just when I needed it to, cos its far too stinking cute for its own good!
It’s a wonderfully well written tale of a newly out of the closet man, finding himself and all about his sexuality, with a willing young man who wants to help. Jamie finds Mark attractive, but he doesn’t want anything serious, last time he ran away when *serious* was talked about, so helping Mark explore all the joys of sex with a man, seems a good way to get close to Mark, while keeping his distance.
Mark has an immediate attraction to Jamie, and when Jamie suggests a friends with benefits type arrangement, Mark is keen to get to know Jamie.
What neither man expected, or wanted, was their emotions to get involved, and when they both realise this is what was happening, Mark and Jamie struggle with ways to talk to each other about it!
It’s not overly explicit, but it is all kinds of sexy! There is no real drama, save the guys finally admitting to themselves, at least, what they feel for each other.
It really is one of those books you just fall into and lose a few hours. It’s only short, some 154 pages, but it packs a hefty punch of cuteness! I listened to this, it’s just over 4 hours.
Michael Pauley narrates.
I have, in the past, found Pauley a bit hit and miss, for me, personally. Here, however, he really nails it!
Pauley’s voices for Mark and Jamie are different enough to be easily identifiable when they are talking, for all the characters, actually. His reading voice is clear and even, and I had no trouble keeping up. There were no dips in the sound to put me off, which has happened with Pauley before. It’s just where he lowers his voice, for thinking or musing, really but here, there is no dipping.
I loved how Pauley gets all the things running around in Mark and Jamie’s heads across, you genuinely sort of fall in love with them, as they fall in love with each other!
I’ve shelved it on my *kinda creeps up on ya* shelf, simply because, that’s what happens!
Love creeps up on Mark and Jamie and it was a pleasure listening to that happen.
4 stars for the book
5 stars for the narration
4.5 stars overall.
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hunter Killer (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The Hunt for Red October. Crimson Tide. Das Boot. These are the some of the greatest submarine movies ever made. Hunter Killer is not on that list.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
That’s not to say that this movie isn’t entertaining. Gerard Butler appears alongside a surprisingly well stocked cast including Academy award winner Gary Oldman, Emmy winner Michael Nyqvist, Common and Linda Cardellini to create a gripping experience that is high action and suspense throughout the entire film. But where it excels in action it falls short in story and character development.
The action begins right off the bat; and within 5 minutes of the opening credits two submarines are destroyed and the world is on the brink of World War 3. Commander Joe Glass (Butler), despite never having captained a submarine before, is field promoted into command of the USS Arkansas, considered a Hunter Killer submarine, and sent to investigate the missing subs. During the course of his investigation, he discovers that not all is what it seems. Meanwhile, Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) and NSA Agent Jayne Norquist (Cardellini) are at the Pentagon with some issues of their own. Using a Navy Seal recon team, they’ve discovered that a Russian military coup is in progress and the only way to prevent a war is to rescue the captive Russian president. In the end, all three teams need to work together in order to steer the two countries away from being driven into a nuclear confrontation by a rogue Russian defense minister
To its credit, this movie is what it is. Pure, driven action with few breaks and absolutely no subplots or side stories. Despite there being three main teams within the film (the submarine, the recon team and the Pentagon team) all three are focused on the same objective and there is very little deviation from their respective missions. There’s no accompanying love story or unshown historical conflict between two characters. There’s not even much in terms of character development beyond the typical “old crew learns to trust new and unproven leader”. This is as close to a pure action movie as you’re going to get. Every single line, scene and character is used to further an explosion in some way or another.
This is the first big project for director Donovan Marsh who, prior to this, hasn’t had anything close to this quality of cast or this kind of budget. Hunter Killer has actually been tossed around the studios for a number of years with other notable directors including Tony Scott (Crimson Tide) and Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) previously attached to the script. While it would have been exciting to see what either of those two could have done with this film, Marsh does manage to keep things alive by maintaining that constant stream of action and suspense. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to be able to elevate the picture above that basic level. Despite an all-star cast who performed excellently, the movie remains essentially one-dimensional.
If you’re looking for a tense (Crimson Tide), intelligent (Hunt for Red October) submarine movie that looks a little more like a political thriller and a little less like an advertisement for the Navy, then this movie is not for you. However, if you’re in need of a bit more action and a lot less subtext, then Hunter Killer makes for a great night out full of explosions, amusing jokes and better acting than the dialogue really deserved.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (2020) in Movies
Jan 30, 2021
Boseman is amazing
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is the latest adaptation of the works of August Wilson brought to us by producer Denzel Washington, following on from the 2016 adaptation of Fences that earned Viola Davis a Best Supporting Actress Oscar. Here Washington hands over the directing reins to Tony award winner George C. Wolfe, while Viola Davis returns as the titular Ma Rainey.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
Set in 1920s Chicago, the film follows a tense and fractious recording session with Ma Rainey and her backing band, old hands Toledo (Glynn Turman), Cutler (Colman Domingo) and Slow Drag (Michael Potts) alongside ambitious young horn player Levee (Chadwick Boseman). Tensions rise between Ma, Levee and the recording studio management (Jeremy Shamos as Irvin and Jonny Coyne as Sturdyvant) as each attempts to control the recording session and play songs that fit best with their own motives. Contributing to the frictions are Levee’s flirtation with Ma’s girlfriend Dussie Mae (Taylour Paige) and her Ma’s stuttering nephew Sylvester (Dusan Brown) as he attempts to introduce Ma’s signature song, Black Bottom.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom undoubtedly looks and sounds good. The cinematography and costumes are perfect and entirely in keeping with the 20s Chicago setting. And the blues music is captivating and beautifully made. To be quite honest I would’ve been quite happy to watch and listen to an entire film solely following the band and their music. However whilst it does look and sound good, it is so obviously a film adapted from a stage play and I’m afraid this isn’t a good thing. There’s a limited number of sets and virtually the entirety of the 90 minute run time is set within two rooms in the recording studio, which makes such a short film feel ridiculously drawn out. This isn’t helped by the huge reliance on very long scripted dialogue and conversational scenes. I can’t deny that the writing is good and is helped by strong performances from everyone involved, but there’s just too much dialogue. This might work on the stage, but on screen it doesn’t quite translate. There’s that much dialogue that the majority of scenes become too heavy and bogged down and sadly almost entirely forgettable. For me a film needs to balance dialogue with actual events and actions, and I’m afraid aside from the final act, nothing much happens here.
Fortunately this is at least boosted by some stellar performances. Viola Davis is brilliant as the spirited Ma Rainey, even if Ma herself as a character is rather unlikeable with some questionable motives for her actions and manners. The star however is the late Chadwick Boseman. While it’s very off putting to see how obviously thin and ill he was filming this, his performance is outstanding. He brings life and fun and heart to every scene he’s in and gives this film a massive boost. Even the drawn out dialogue heavy scenes become enthralling when he’s talking and the emotions on show are spectacular. Despite Viola Davis being the star as Ma, it’s Boseman that carried this film entirely on his shoulders. If he doesn’t win a posthumous Oscar for this, it’d be criminal.
Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom is a shining example of stellar performances, most notably Chadwick Boseman. It’s just a shame that the rest of the film doesn’t quite meet the high standards set by its stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Barbie (2023) in Movies
Jul 21, 2023
More Than Meets The Eye
The Margot Robbie/Ryan Gosling curiosity BARBIE is a subversive film. This Greta Gerwig directed move lures you in by presenting a farcical/satirical look at the pastel colored “Barbieland” and the myriad of outfits and “golly-gosh” goodness of the world of this iconic Mattel doll (and her boyfriend, Ken). Once you are comfortably settled into this world, you are transformed to the “real world” and the much deeper themes of a women’s place in a patriarchal world.
As another toy’s slogan puts it, “there’s more than meets the eye” to this film.
And one should have expected something more than just a “surfacey-fun” film from the Writer/Director of such fare as LADYBIRD and FRANCES HA. Gerwing uses the stereotypes of Barbie and Ken to take a look at our society and the inherent hierarchy of the sexes while peeling back the layers of the key players to make them more than the plastic dolls they portray.
And…it works surprisingly well for adults - not so much for kids.
Margot Robbie, of course, is perfectly cast as the titular Barbie. She has the looks and the vacuous devil-may-care attitude of “Stereotype Barbie” and is a comfortable, pleasing entity to share this adventure with. But, with Gerwig’s direction, Robbie’s performance reveals, subtly, layer after layer until - at the end - we end up with a full fledged character and not just a living doll.
Ryan Gosling is just as strong as Barbie’s counterpart, Ken. He morphs from a Barbie worshipping boyfriend to something else once he encounters the real, male-dominated world. The BankofMarquis wondered why Gosling would agree to do a film that, on it’s surface, appears to be a one-note joke-fest, but once the film really drives to it’s point, one can see why Gosling agreed to be in this.
Issa Rae, Kate McKinnon, Simu Liu, Michael Cerra, Helen Mirren (as the narrator) and America Ferrara all spark - at times - during this film while it was good to see Rhea Perlman (Carla on CHEERS) have a role that she could sink her teeth into.
Only Will Ferrell - as the money hungry CEO of Mattel - falls short of interesting. His character - one of the only “real world” characters in this film - stays stereotypical throughout the movie. He is the only complete caricature in this film…and perhaps that is on purpose.
Credit for the surprising depth of this film goes to Gerwig who brings her sensibilities to this film to make a comment on our society. It’s a bold move by Gerwig and works well…unless you are a Mom that is bringing your 5 or 6 year old child to this film.
And, that is the caution to this movie. It’s not, necessarily, made for the youngsters that play with Barbies. The kids will love the early going of this film, but the more adult themes in the middle of the movie will probably make a good deal of them squirm in their seats, since these moments of depth will go over their heads.
A surprisingly fun…and deeper than it appears to be….film, this Barbie is a multi-level dreamhouse.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
As another toy’s slogan puts it, “there’s more than meets the eye” to this film.
And one should have expected something more than just a “surfacey-fun” film from the Writer/Director of such fare as LADYBIRD and FRANCES HA. Gerwing uses the stereotypes of Barbie and Ken to take a look at our society and the inherent hierarchy of the sexes while peeling back the layers of the key players to make them more than the plastic dolls they portray.
And…it works surprisingly well for adults - not so much for kids.
Margot Robbie, of course, is perfectly cast as the titular Barbie. She has the looks and the vacuous devil-may-care attitude of “Stereotype Barbie” and is a comfortable, pleasing entity to share this adventure with. But, with Gerwig’s direction, Robbie’s performance reveals, subtly, layer after layer until - at the end - we end up with a full fledged character and not just a living doll.
Ryan Gosling is just as strong as Barbie’s counterpart, Ken. He morphs from a Barbie worshipping boyfriend to something else once he encounters the real, male-dominated world. The BankofMarquis wondered why Gosling would agree to do a film that, on it’s surface, appears to be a one-note joke-fest, but once the film really drives to it’s point, one can see why Gosling agreed to be in this.
Issa Rae, Kate McKinnon, Simu Liu, Michael Cerra, Helen Mirren (as the narrator) and America Ferrara all spark - at times - during this film while it was good to see Rhea Perlman (Carla on CHEERS) have a role that she could sink her teeth into.
Only Will Ferrell - as the money hungry CEO of Mattel - falls short of interesting. His character - one of the only “real world” characters in this film - stays stereotypical throughout the movie. He is the only complete caricature in this film…and perhaps that is on purpose.
Credit for the surprising depth of this film goes to Gerwig who brings her sensibilities to this film to make a comment on our society. It’s a bold move by Gerwig and works well…unless you are a Mom that is bringing your 5 or 6 year old child to this film.
And, that is the caution to this movie. It’s not, necessarily, made for the youngsters that play with Barbies. The kids will love the early going of this film, but the more adult themes in the middle of the movie will probably make a good deal of them squirm in their seats, since these moments of depth will go over their heads.
A surprisingly fun…and deeper than it appears to be….film, this Barbie is a multi-level dreamhouse.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the BankofMarquis