Search
Search results
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 Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Titanic in the Sky
Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence are two of the world’s most bankable stars. What with Pratt helping to resurrect prehistoric franchises like Jurassic Park and Lawrence turning The Hunger Games series into one of the biggest ever, it seems they are the people Hollywood wants to work with, right here, right now.
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
It was inevitable they’d team up together at some point, though director Mortem Tyldum’s (The Imitation Game) sci-fi flick Passengers perhaps isn’t what their fan-bases had in mind. But do the pair sizzle together as much as they do apart?
On a routine journey through space to a new home, two passengers, sleeping in suspended animation, are awakened 90 years too early when their ship malfunctions. As Jim (Pratt) and Aurora (Lawrence) face living the rest of their lives on board, with every luxury they could ever ask for, they begin to fall for each other, unable to deny their intense attraction until they discover the ship is in grave danger. With the lives of 5,000 sleeping passengers at stake, only Jim and Aurora can save them all.
Adding to the ever expanding sci-fi universe, Passengers is a slickly directed and engrossing film with a coat of varnish like no other movie this year. It certainly looks the part, though it’s probably best not to scratch beneath the surface of this Titanic in the sky, as much like the Starship Avalon on which our unlucky duo are stranded on, there’s not much going on underneath.
Pratt and Lawrence thankfully have an intense chemistry together, and that’s a good thing considering they are, by and large, the only two characters throughout. Propping up a 2 hour film is no easy feat and its testament to their talents that they are able to do so. Sure, their dialogue is a little cheesy, but they’re likeable enough to warrant a pardon this time around.
Elsewhere, Michael Sheen comes close to stealing the show as an enthusiastic android bartender, providing yet another great droid to add to the genre’s roster. Alan Tudyk from last week’s Rogue One also showed how deep these mechanical characters can be.
The special effects are on the whole very good, though there are a few instances of CGI that don’t quite hit the spot. The Avalon itself however is fantastically realised and scenes like the much-marketed swimming pool gravity loss are stunning to watch, all the while helped by Pratt and Lawrence’s brilliant acting skills.
There is one big problem however. The story. There are numerous elements to the plot that aren’t mentioned in the trailer, so I won’t spoil them for you here, but Passengers has seriously miscalculated a couple of elements to Pratt and Lawrence’s relationship – with a sudden third act tonal shift leaving a sour taste in the mouth.
Luckily, these flaws don’t detract from what is a thrilling rollercoaster from start to finish. Whilst it may not be as deep and meaningful as Ridley Scott’s The Martian, Passengers has an immersive quality – it’s like being on-board the Avalon, and with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence keeping us company, who can blame us for going along for the ride.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/22/titanic-in-the-sky-passengers-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Princess Bride: Storming The Castle in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
You haven’t played this game? Inconceivable! Actually, quite conceivable. I wasn’t really into the board game hobby when this came out in 2008, so of course I did not pick it up at release. I am a big Princess Bride fan, and I probably would have picked it up at release because I’m a sucker for certain IPs. There are few copies of this still floating around for sale, so it can be had at a modest price. However, will you enjoy it? Will it bore you “to the pain”? Read on.
So this game, at its heart, is a racing game. You will be racing your pawn toward Humperdinck’s castle in the middle of the table, and you need to traverse several Path cards depicting different areas in the Princess Bride universe. Each of these Path cards will dictate whether you will need specific equipment/items to gain access, or if they are free of that requirement. If you start your turn at the gates of the castle, or have an item allowing you entry sooner, you win!
Ok, the bad. The components are just not great. The box is flimsy and boring. The insert is laughable. The cards are acceptable quality – don’t expect any better quality than normal playing cards picked up at the dollar store. The art on the cards is also very boring and the ink used on the cards seems to be flaking a bit after just a few plays. Screen grabs on cards are fine to me, but the choices made on some of these cards are very questionable. The pawns are poorly designed and they fall over all the time, which is unfortunate when you have to play on a smaller table.
The good now. Owning a Princess Bride game that I can pull out and actually play and have a decent time is a positive for me. There are other games with this same IP that are… not at all fun. This one actually has some gameplay to it that you can enjoy for a while, and even crave future plays. Yes, it feels a bit like Munchkin in that you are trying to achieve the winning goal and your opponents are trying their hardest to delay you. However, it differs due to the fact that the pile-on is slow and you have to basically forfeit your turn to debilitate your opponent. Is that strategy worth it? I’m not so sure…
Does it make you feel like you are in the story? Not really. Do you shudder when the RUSes and Shrieking Eels come into play? Nah, but they are so formidable in the story! Is the GAME worth it though? Yeah, it is. If you are a fan of the book or movie, this is the best Princess Bride game out there. Will another game come out and knock it off the top spot? I hope so. But for now, I am happy with my copy of the game. Perhaps I will look into blinging it out a bit to make it more epic. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a swashbuckling 7 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/the-princess-bride-storming-the-castle-review/
So this game, at its heart, is a racing game. You will be racing your pawn toward Humperdinck’s castle in the middle of the table, and you need to traverse several Path cards depicting different areas in the Princess Bride universe. Each of these Path cards will dictate whether you will need specific equipment/items to gain access, or if they are free of that requirement. If you start your turn at the gates of the castle, or have an item allowing you entry sooner, you win!
Ok, the bad. The components are just not great. The box is flimsy and boring. The insert is laughable. The cards are acceptable quality – don’t expect any better quality than normal playing cards picked up at the dollar store. The art on the cards is also very boring and the ink used on the cards seems to be flaking a bit after just a few plays. Screen grabs on cards are fine to me, but the choices made on some of these cards are very questionable. The pawns are poorly designed and they fall over all the time, which is unfortunate when you have to play on a smaller table.
The good now. Owning a Princess Bride game that I can pull out and actually play and have a decent time is a positive for me. There are other games with this same IP that are… not at all fun. This one actually has some gameplay to it that you can enjoy for a while, and even crave future plays. Yes, it feels a bit like Munchkin in that you are trying to achieve the winning goal and your opponents are trying their hardest to delay you. However, it differs due to the fact that the pile-on is slow and you have to basically forfeit your turn to debilitate your opponent. Is that strategy worth it? I’m not so sure…
Does it make you feel like you are in the story? Not really. Do you shudder when the RUSes and Shrieking Eels come into play? Nah, but they are so formidable in the story! Is the GAME worth it though? Yeah, it is. If you are a fan of the book or movie, this is the best Princess Bride game out there. Will another game come out and knock it off the top spot? I hope so. But for now, I am happy with my copy of the game. Perhaps I will look into blinging it out a bit to make it more epic. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a swashbuckling 7 / 12.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/the-princess-bride-storming-the-castle-review/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Iron Man (2008) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Tony Stark is a billionaire playboy engineer who has been developing the latest weapons to defend the home land, he looks down on most the people he meets including the soldiers showing around the warzone. He gets captured and designs a weapon that sees him escape, he makes himself Iron Man which will keep him alive, which sees him looking at life through different eyes, where he doesn’t want to supply weapons in conflict. Rhodey is the military best friend of Tony’s he uses the weapons created to help his men, he can get tired of Tony’s partying lifestyle. Obadiah Stane ran Stark enterprise after Tony’s parents death, he has mentored Tony in business, but is left with a difficult decision after Tony’s decision to stop making weapons. Pepper Potts is Tony’s assistant, she handles the affairs while he gets on with his business.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is fantastic in the leading role, we can believe his confidence and cocky nature that he is showing through the film. Terrence Howard is playing a more grounded character, he would go onto be replaced in this role, he just doesn’t have the complete opposite against that Robert brings. Jeff Bridges is strong as the villainous businessman who is controlled by greed. Gwyneth Paltrow does a solid job as Pepper, where she is going to become a character we get to know through the franchise.
Story – The story shows us how Tony Stark went from businessman to Iron Man after learning the cost of his weapons which are being used on both sides of the war and must stop the man running his family’s company into the ground with these action. For origin stories we get to see the change in Tony’s mentality over the course of the story which is what will make somebody a hero. We don’t get the completely over the top destruction, with most of the fight scenes blending into the story where we see Tony learning how to control his suit. We get the first steps into the Marvel Cinematic Universe which brings the franchise to life with this just needing to give the hero an early villain that will make him a new hero in the world.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film comes war sequences and how Tony learns about his suits capabilities, the first mission shows what we are going to see in the future. The sci-fi elements in this film comes from how the suit is created to keep Tony alive and the new levels of technology involved.
Settings – The film takes us to a couple of locations, Miami where Tony lives shows his playboy lifestyle, the Afghan locations show how the war is being fought with the two different sides and the same weapons.
Special Effects – The effects used in this film show us the scale of what Tony will have do to survive, we have the idea of his heart that never looks out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Iron Man’s first mission.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Rhodey isn’t the most interesting character in this film.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful beginning to the franchise which would go onto change how cinema is experienced, it has the origin of an unknown character to the casual fans of comic book movies, which works for laughs and action, without being a comedy.
Overall: Fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Performances – Robert Downey Jr is fantastic in the leading role, we can believe his confidence and cocky nature that he is showing through the film. Terrence Howard is playing a more grounded character, he would go onto be replaced in this role, he just doesn’t have the complete opposite against that Robert brings. Jeff Bridges is strong as the villainous businessman who is controlled by greed. Gwyneth Paltrow does a solid job as Pepper, where she is going to become a character we get to know through the franchise.
Story – The story shows us how Tony Stark went from businessman to Iron Man after learning the cost of his weapons which are being used on both sides of the war and must stop the man running his family’s company into the ground with these action. For origin stories we get to see the change in Tony’s mentality over the course of the story which is what will make somebody a hero. We don’t get the completely over the top destruction, with most of the fight scenes blending into the story where we see Tony learning how to control his suit. We get the first steps into the Marvel Cinematic Universe which brings the franchise to life with this just needing to give the hero an early villain that will make him a new hero in the world.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in this film comes war sequences and how Tony learns about his suits capabilities, the first mission shows what we are going to see in the future. The sci-fi elements in this film comes from how the suit is created to keep Tony alive and the new levels of technology involved.
Settings – The film takes us to a couple of locations, Miami where Tony lives shows his playboy lifestyle, the Afghan locations show how the war is being fought with the two different sides and the same weapons.
Special Effects – The effects used in this film show us the scale of what Tony will have do to survive, we have the idea of his heart that never looks out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Iron Man’s first mission.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Rhodey isn’t the most interesting character in this film.
Final Thoughts – This is a wonderful beginning to the franchise which would go onto change how cinema is experienced, it has the origin of an unknown character to the casual fans of comic book movies, which works for laughs and action, without being a comedy.
Overall: Fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cherry (2021) in Movies
Feb 25, 2021
Tom Holland and Joe and Anthony Russo have teamed up again but this time on a project which is about as far away from the Marvel universe as possible. Based on the book Nico Walker; “Cherry” is a compelling tale told in segments that depict a different style and phase of the main character’s life.
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Holland stars as a young man who is trying to find a direction in his life. He meets a young girl named Emily (Ciara Bravo), and soon begins a relationship with her. This phase of the film plays out as a Young Romance film and the audience is given a good look at their world.
When Emily decides to move to Montreal to go to school and escape the issues she has’ Cherry goes into a downward spiral and enlists in the Army as a way to escape his pain and to try to find direction.
The film takes a dramatic turn at this point as Emily and Cherry reunite and marries but he is facing his pending military service which will split the couple. The film then pivots and becomes a war movie as we see Cherry go through Basic Training and then is deployed to Afghanistan as a medic. The horrors he experiences during his two years in the service traumatize him and he returns home to Emily with a severe case of PTSD which complicates their life and relationship.
The film then pivots again to show a descent into depression and drug addiction as Cherry and Emily fall deeply into the spell of drugs which causes Cherry to become more and more desperate to fund their habit which soon includes bank robbery.
While the film is deeply dark and depressing; there is a thread of hope throughout the film as despite their numerous issues; the bond between Emily and Cherry remains despite challenges well beyond what any normal relationship faces.
The honest and brutal nature of the story is amplified by the fact that this is a true story based on the life of Nico Walker. There have been films that depict the challenges facing Vets such as “The Deer Hunter” “Coming Home”, and “Born on the 4th of July”, which underscores the struggles that Vietnam Vets faced after their service. While “Cherry” looks at a modern conflict; it underscores how Vets are still struggling to get the care they need as many survivors to return broken and unable to resume their lives.
Holland and Bravo have solid chemistry with one another and the story is gripping and engaging throughout. Seeing Holland in a much more mature and darker role than we are used to seeing him in shows that he has a range of talents and is very capable of taking on a variety of parts.
Joe and Anthony Russo moved well from their recent Marvel films to a deeply personal and troubling story and the fact that they cover the multiple genres in each of the film segments shows they are very talented filmmakers with a bright future.
Do not be shocked to see “Cherry” come up at the next awards season as it is a film not to be missed and you can see it on Apple TV on March 12th. and cinemas on February 26th.
4.5 stars out of 5
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Oct 10, 2020
Excellent, but not quite as good as the first
For me, the first series of The Boys was a brilliant surprise and the wait for this second series has been a rather frustrating and impatient experience, especially as Amazon decided not to release the entire series at once. Fortunately by the time the credits rolled on the series 2 finale, it was definitely worth the wait.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.
This second series follows on from the reveal at the end of the series 1 finale, and features more dodgy supes and the Boys trying to take down both them and Vought.
Series 2 is very similar to the first. It’s just as rude and crude as before, full of dark and often hilarious humour and the blood and gore ante seems to have been upped considerably. It definitely provides a refreshing change to the Marvel universe and the majority of other superheroes that stick to their PG or 12A ratings. This has a very smart and funny take on politics and also on pop culture and the media, and even superhero films don’t escape this unscathed when we see The Seven making their own movie.
The cast are as fantastic as they were in the first series. Antony Starr is outstanding as Homelander, playing the homicidal maniac with some semblance of a heart – after 2 series I think I both love and hate him in equal parts, he’s such a complex character. It was very nice to see Dominique McElligott get more to work with as Maeve as well and to see more depth to her character. The rest of the cast and the new additions do very well too - Goran Visjnic, Shawn Ashmore and Jim Beaver are especially welcome, and it was very clever of Eric Kripke to name Beaver’s character as Robert Singer, the same name as his character from Supernatural.
Despite this, I don’t think this series is perfect and I do think it’s a slight baby step down from the rather excellent first series. Some of the episodes feel like they drag a little, although they do end up picking up towards the end (usually with a bang). The final two episodes definitely try and make up for this and I think the finale itself was especially good as we get to see Stormfront get her much deserved comeuppance. I also think some of the interactions between Starlight and the other characters are slightly badly scripted and feel a little forced and cringeworthy, but I’m not entirely sure if this is on purpose to show how awkwardly Starlight interacts with others.
The Deep has also been done a disservice in this series. He starts off brilliantly and the scene with the whale in the third episode is downright genius, however as the series moves on we see less and less of him and he’s sorely missed. Admittedly when he does pop up in the later episodes he has some cracking lines, but it’s not enough. I also think that Shawn Ashmore as Lamplighter was fantastic for the brief time we saw him, and I really wish he’d been kept around for much longer.
The Boys series 2 is overall a very good series that for the most part lives up to it’s predecessor and after the final few scenes in episode 8, definitely leaves us crying out for more.