Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nobody (2021) in Movies
Jun 9, 2021
Bob Odenkirk (1 more)
A fun, adrenaline-fuelled script
What Kevin McAllister did once all grown up
The "Nobody" in question is Hutch Mansell (Bob Odenkirk) who lives a humdrum suburban life: a 9-to-5 managerial job at his in-laws manufacturing plant; distant wife (Connie Nielsen); two kids, Blake (Gage Munroe) and Abby (Paisley Cadorath); an elderly father (Christopher Lloyd) in a local care home. Basically, the Mansell's are all living the American dream, but all subject to the monotonous grind of that daily life for week after week. That all changes in the middle of the night after Hutch confronts two bungling burglars and - in the full gaze of his son - 'wimps out' on taking action. All the silent rage and embarrassment has to go somewhere, and it does - on a late night bus ride; an event that sets off a sequence of increasingly bloody encounters!
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Positives:
- Bob Odenkirk is charismatically dull! His character could be compared with that of Christian Wolff in 2016's "The Accountant". But in that movie, Ben Affleck was just dull dull! Here Odenkirk brings his character to life in a truly wonderful and sparkly way.
- The movie is a hyper-violent but adrenaline-fuelled joy ride. There's a slight lull after the initial burglary, but then it's a downhill bobsleigh ride with no brakes from there to the end. It comes as no surprise that the writer, Derek Kolstad, is the guy behind the John Wick franchise. The script has moments of black comedy that made me laugh out loud a good few times.
- The editing here (by Evan Schiff and William Yeh) is very slick indeed, most noticeably so in the many fight scenes. The one on the bus could be pulled apart as a template for a film school lesson.
Negatives:
- I've very little to add here. Yes, it's a rather shallow story, but I found it a hugely entertaining rush of a movie. However the intensity of the violence will not be for everyone. The lady a few seats along from me had her hands over her eyes for at least 75% of the movie I reckon.
- I wasn't clear where the character played by RZA fitted into the mix. Having (post film) seen the cast list, I'm even more confused!
Additional notes:
- There is a post credit scene in this one, shortly into the end credits, so don't dive for the doors too quickly if you want to see it. That being said, it doesn't really make much sense (why are they doing this?) and it isn't particularly funny either. So if you did miss it, then don't sweat about it!
- This is a movie that I knew virtually nothing about on going into it. Which is the best way to see it. As such, it's worth NOT watching the trailer, and going in on that basis if you can.
Summary Thoughts on "Nobody": It's a pretty shallow plot.... but it's also bloody good fun! I expected this to follow the well worn road of classic "revenge" movies - like "Death Wish" or "Taken" - but was pleasantly surprised that it didn't. A better comparison might be Michael Douglas's "Falling Down", but with the central character having more heart.
There are lots of nods to sequences from other movies in here: "Home Alone" (for obvious reasons!); "Patriot Games" and "The Equalizer" came to my mind. And the finale reminded me strongly of the anarchic chaos of 2016's "Free Fire".
Intellectual it ain't. But provided you can stomach the Tom and Jerry style violence, and suspend your belief at the punishment Hutch can take without hospital treatment, then "Nobody" ticks all the boxes for a fun night out at the flicks.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/09/nobody-what-kevin-mcallister-did-once-all-grown-up/. There's also a new Tiktok channel at onemannsmovies. Thanks).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2019
Another DC Win
When a foster kid runs into an ancient wizard, he suddenly finds that he can turn himself into a superhero by uttering a simple word: Shazam! DC has run into a fair share of buzz saws when it comes to making quality movies, but chalk one up on the positive side with this one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 10, 2017 (Updated Oct 10, 2017)
Loki was fun to watch. (1 more)
Good SFX.
Totally forgettable villain. (1 more)
Any scene involving Kat Dennings and her intern.
Thor: God Of Meh
In the run up to the release of Thor: Ragnarok, the third Thor movie, I decided to go back and watch the only movie in the Marvel Cinematic Universe that I have not seen yet. I never had anything against this movie before I saw it, I had just heard it is mediocre and a bit unnecessary and to be honest Thor is one of my least favourite Avengers. Funnily enough what I got was a fairly unnecessary, mediocre superhero sequel with some fun moments sprinkled throughout.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
This isn't a bad movie overall, it's just painfully mediocre. The direction is uninspired, the performances are phoned in and the plot is run of the mill for a superhero story. The new characters introduced are extraordinarily vanilla, the score is okay and the script is pretty pedestrian in terms of the kind of story it is telling. The whole thing is just passable and yet extremely unremarkable.
I know Marvel movies have become notorious for their obvious lack of decent antagonists, (other than Loki,) but this takes it to a new level of generic. This group of villains makes the Ultron bots look like deep, fleshed out characters.
I found myself getting extremely annoyed every time that Kat Dennings was in the screen and I don't hate this actress, I don't even remember hating her in the first Thor movie, but in this she was insufferable. Her over the top pantomime acting was painful to watch and none of the snarky remarks that she hit out with landed. The guy that was her intern was just as bad and there wasn't even any real need for these characters to be in the movie.
In summary, it's okay. Not much focus is put on Tom Hiddleston's Loki in this one, but when it is, these are the best parts of the movie. He is easily the highlight of a sub par movie overall. Even Chris Hemsworth was bad in this and I know that the guy is a good actor, I've seen him give brilliant performances in movies both within and outside of the MCU. Every part of this movie is positively conventional and these moderately successful parts add up to a tolerable film that is by no means required viewing, not even for the most die hard of comic book fans.
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Bad Moms Christmas (2017) in Movies
Nov 5, 2017
A disappointing sequel
I always start my reviews of movie comedies by complaining how most of them just aren't that funny. Usually having a raucous trailer which combines every single one of the movies mildly funny moments into two or three minutes of high energy in an attempt to con you into buying a ticket. And I usually make a comparison to Bad Moms when I'm complaining about them too, probably the funniest comedy I've seen in a couple of years now. My enjoyment of Bad Moms was probably helped by the fact that I was watching it while say next to a busy, overworked mom in the shape of my wife, but it was still very enjoyable all the same. A lot of other people must have thought so too, as they managed to quickly rush out this inferior sequel in order to cash in.
Bad Moms Christmas kicks off on Christmas day, with Amy (Mila Kunis) sitting on the stairs of her home, Christmas tree toppled over, and other Christmas mess all around her. She looks beat, and a real life camel calmly walks past her. This must have been some big crazy party that we're going to rewind and watch unfold in full horrific detail. Spoiler: we do get to see the party, and it's definitely not crazy.
We do go back a few days though and the movie starts counting down each day in the run up to Christmas. All the original cast are back, but this time, in an attempt to double up on the number of Bad Moms (it's a sequel after all), all the moms of our three leads show up to make their lives that much worse. With another upcoming sequel, Daddys Home 2, set to do exactly the same thing, this must just be the thing these days.
With the older moms looking to dictate and ruin the holiday season, their daughters vow to take back Christmas. Unfortunately though, this just involves a bit of drunken bad behaviour in a shopping mall and some grinding/gyrating around an elderly Santa Claus. All a bit disappointing really.
While it's heart is in the right place and everyone is friends again by the time the end of the movie and Christmas day dinner rolls round, overall this is a much less enjoyable movie than the first. While there are some funny moments, the laugh rate is way, way down on the last movie too and a rethink of further 'holiday moms' planned movies is seriously needed.
Bad Moms Christmas kicks off on Christmas day, with Amy (Mila Kunis) sitting on the stairs of her home, Christmas tree toppled over, and other Christmas mess all around her. She looks beat, and a real life camel calmly walks past her. This must have been some big crazy party that we're going to rewind and watch unfold in full horrific detail. Spoiler: we do get to see the party, and it's definitely not crazy.
We do go back a few days though and the movie starts counting down each day in the run up to Christmas. All the original cast are back, but this time, in an attempt to double up on the number of Bad Moms (it's a sequel after all), all the moms of our three leads show up to make their lives that much worse. With another upcoming sequel, Daddys Home 2, set to do exactly the same thing, this must just be the thing these days.
With the older moms looking to dictate and ruin the holiday season, their daughters vow to take back Christmas. Unfortunately though, this just involves a bit of drunken bad behaviour in a shopping mall and some grinding/gyrating around an elderly Santa Claus. All a bit disappointing really.
While it's heart is in the right place and everyone is friends again by the time the end of the movie and Christmas day dinner rolls round, overall this is a much less enjoyable movie than the first. While there are some funny moments, the laugh rate is way, way down on the last movie too and a rethink of further 'holiday moms' planned movies is seriously needed.
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 17, 2017
Fantastic Story (4 more)
Left you wanting more
The Mix of comedy and action
The Flash
Length of the movie
A Super Hero Movie Everyone Can Enjoy
Well folks, it finally arrived. The Justice League was one of the best super hero movies I have seen. I did not go into the movie with high expectation. I just went in wanting to be entertained. I got and so much more. I walked out of the theater with a big smile on my face and nothing but good things to say.
I will get this over with first, but I did not care to much for how the movie opened with the kids interviewing Superman. It kind of felt off with the way the rest of the movie played out. After that moment it was just high flying from there.
The best part of this movie was the lack of origin story feel. They introduced the character in a way that made it feel they have been around forever. It didn't get into detail one where they came from and how they got there powers. They just gave us just enough to want to see more of them in another movie. What they showed us in this movie is that characters just needed to be placed in to the story and let go from there.
I would not call this a spoiler but Superman does come back from the dead. It was done perfectly. I think the weird thing though is that it was done in broad daylight and only 2 cops were around to see it. And Batman was out during the day too. Oh well.
The core story line of the movie, Steppenwolf getting the mother boxes told very well. Not to long and not to short. It I told us who the bad guy was, why he was doing it and how it was going to be accomplished. You can probably tell I like shorter movies. I know people are going to be a little upset with the lack of Darkseid, but I am sure it will make a big splash in a future movie.
Well I don't want to spoil the ending because I want you to go and see it, but it will make you wanting so much more. Also stay till the end of the credits, you will not be disappointed like you were at the end of the Wonder Women credits.
Well until next time, enjoy the show.
I will get this over with first, but I did not care to much for how the movie opened with the kids interviewing Superman. It kind of felt off with the way the rest of the movie played out. After that moment it was just high flying from there.
The best part of this movie was the lack of origin story feel. They introduced the character in a way that made it feel they have been around forever. It didn't get into detail one where they came from and how they got there powers. They just gave us just enough to want to see more of them in another movie. What they showed us in this movie is that characters just needed to be placed in to the story and let go from there.
I would not call this a spoiler but Superman does come back from the dead. It was done perfectly. I think the weird thing though is that it was done in broad daylight and only 2 cops were around to see it. And Batman was out during the day too. Oh well.
The core story line of the movie, Steppenwolf getting the mother boxes told very well. Not to long and not to short. It I told us who the bad guy was, why he was doing it and how it was going to be accomplished. You can probably tell I like shorter movies. I know people are going to be a little upset with the lack of Darkseid, but I am sure it will make a big splash in a future movie.
Well I don't want to spoil the ending because I want you to go and see it, but it will make you wanting so much more. Also stay till the end of the credits, you will not be disappointed like you were at the end of the Wonder Women credits.
Well until next time, enjoy the show.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wreck-It-Ralph (2012) in Movies
Nov 12, 2018
Deserves greater credit than it currently is getting
Not being a big video game guy, I was late to the party to the original WRECK-IT RALPH in 2012 and when I saw it, I thought "it's fine" and didn't really think more about it. Now that it's sequel is coming out, I thought it would be good time to revisit this film (and to also remind me of the characters of the first one). And I'm glad I did, for I enjoyed myself much more this go around with this film than I did in my initial experience.
Taking a page out of PIXAR, this WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS picture tells the "inside story" of what happens to Video Game characters when the lights go off. Following a "villain" in a game, WRECK-IT RALPH tells the story of Ralph's attempt to become a hero by winning a medal in another video game, only to become something more when he encounters a "glitch" in another game.
This is a well made, smart animation film that has enough action, suspense and silliness to appeal to children, but enough "adult content" (read: smart humor that goes over the heads of the kids) to appeal to the adults that have taken the kids to the movies. It pays great homage to video games - many of which went over my head, but (I am assured) were well played (at least according to the video gamers that I am acquainted).
Like all animated movies, a good percentage of the joy of this film is in the voice work - and this picture has very good ones from Sarah Silverman's Vanellope to Jack McBrayer's Fix-It Felix and Jane Lynch's kick-butt Calhoun, the voices strongly portray the character - and character types - quickly and easily. Special mention should be made of Allan Tudyk's King Candy (an homage to the the great Vaudeville and early film comedian Ed Wynn) and, especially, John C. Reilly in the title role. He is perfectly cast as Ralph, showing the weight of the size of the character in his voice with a sweetness and vulnerability that shows the size of the character's heart.
This is a wonderful and winning film, one that deserves greater praise than it is currently given, and I, for one, am looking forward to the sequel coming out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Taking a page out of PIXAR, this WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS picture tells the "inside story" of what happens to Video Game characters when the lights go off. Following a "villain" in a game, WRECK-IT RALPH tells the story of Ralph's attempt to become a hero by winning a medal in another video game, only to become something more when he encounters a "glitch" in another game.
This is a well made, smart animation film that has enough action, suspense and silliness to appeal to children, but enough "adult content" (read: smart humor that goes over the heads of the kids) to appeal to the adults that have taken the kids to the movies. It pays great homage to video games - many of which went over my head, but (I am assured) were well played (at least according to the video gamers that I am acquainted).
Like all animated movies, a good percentage of the joy of this film is in the voice work - and this picture has very good ones from Sarah Silverman's Vanellope to Jack McBrayer's Fix-It Felix and Jane Lynch's kick-butt Calhoun, the voices strongly portray the character - and character types - quickly and easily. Special mention should be made of Allan Tudyk's King Candy (an homage to the the great Vaudeville and early film comedian Ed Wynn) and, especially, John C. Reilly in the title role. He is perfectly cast as Ralph, showing the weight of the size of the character in his voice with a sweetness and vulnerability that shows the size of the character's heart.
This is a wonderful and winning film, one that deserves greater praise than it is currently given, and I, for one, am looking forward to the sequel coming out.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Just about everybody knows the stories revolving around the U.S.S. Enterprise and it's crew lead by Captain James Tiberius Kirk. This reboot is an alternate reality to what happened in those familiar stories chronicling the early days of how the crew came together, went through the ranks of star fleet, and basically became the characters every Trekkie knows and loves today. The only issues this movie may have had was if it would appeal to people who weren't fans of the original Star Trek and if it would be enjoyable to those people. Considering it was the number one movie in the country in its opening weekend, brought in another $43 million its second weekend in theaters (bringing its grand total to over $147 million), and has glowing reviews on both IMDb (8.5/10, over 50,000 votes, #71 in the top 250 movies) and Rotten Tomatoes (95% fresh, 245 fresh reviews, rated 8.1/10), the answer seems obvious.
Star Trek exceeded all of my expectations. I'm not a Trekkie, but this is the movie that should have kicked off the summer season. The film is somehow capable of keeping the same essence of the original series yet inject a breath of fresh air into the franchise with new faces representing familiar characters. The film really appears to a wide range of moviegoers since it has just about everything anyone is looking for when they go to the movies and affectively blends action, comedy, sci-fi, and romance into one sensational adventure. The cast is truly superb. Karl Urban practically channeled DeForest Kelley in his portrayal of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty stole every scene he was in. Zachary Quinto fit the young Spock character like a glove. I could go on and on. There really wasn't a poor performance from anyone.
The only minor complaint I have about the film was the lens flare effect they seemed to use throughout the film. It was hardly noticeable at times, but I remember it being a bit irritating towards the last half of the film. Other than that, I'd like to see more of Scotty in the sequel. But that's more of a suggestion than anything.
Star Trek is a fun and exciting film that's really for everyone. The film is a little over two hours long, but it feels much shorter. Go ahead and group this with Batman Begins as one of the successful reboots that's also incredibly enjoyable.
Star Trek exceeded all of my expectations. I'm not a Trekkie, but this is the movie that should have kicked off the summer season. The film is somehow capable of keeping the same essence of the original series yet inject a breath of fresh air into the franchise with new faces representing familiar characters. The film really appears to a wide range of moviegoers since it has just about everything anyone is looking for when they go to the movies and affectively blends action, comedy, sci-fi, and romance into one sensational adventure. The cast is truly superb. Karl Urban practically channeled DeForest Kelley in his portrayal of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy and Simon Pegg as Scotty stole every scene he was in. Zachary Quinto fit the young Spock character like a glove. I could go on and on. There really wasn't a poor performance from anyone.
The only minor complaint I have about the film was the lens flare effect they seemed to use throughout the film. It was hardly noticeable at times, but I remember it being a bit irritating towards the last half of the film. Other than that, I'd like to see more of Scotty in the sequel. But that's more of a suggestion than anything.
Star Trek is a fun and exciting film that's really for everyone. The film is a little over two hours long, but it feels much shorter. Go ahead and group this with Batman Begins as one of the successful reboots that's also incredibly enjoyable.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Schindler's List (1993) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I've started and restarted this review about five times, I'm not sure where to begin.
It pains me to say it but I think the negatives outweigh the positives on this for me. The sets are incredible though and the fact that they managed to get hoards of people working together is no easy feat. It's certainly an epic achievement.
I have spoken to a few people since seeing it and mentioned the fact that I didn't like it filmed as black and white, I've been surprised at how many condescending responses I had. "Black and white films are difficult for some people to get used to." "They're not to everyone's tastes." For the record I love black and white movies, the issue I have with this one though is that it's so sharp that at times it looks unnatural. The joy of black and white movies is the feeling of a little age to the film. Perhaps this is just the curse of the modern age, but all the shots look amazingly crisp. I know, how often does someone moan about having filming that's too good for a film?
"Remember to take some tissues!" was the response I got when I told people I was going to see it, me being a crier I heeded the warning. I was left mostly unmoved though. The statements of fact and the scenes at Auschwitz certainly made me pause for thought and brought a tear to my eye but the dramatised sections generally didn't hold a lot of impact.
When Schindler has his departing scene it really felt that it should have been more emotional for the viewer but it came across a little hammy. Neeson's acting had been relatively understated the whole way through and they chose that moment for him to depart from that?
Some moments in history only need the facts, and while creatively this was a masterpiece (certainly the music was) I didn't feel that it was possible to get the gravity of the situation. In this instance I would personally like to know the real accounts and that would be achieved better by reading some books on the subject of watching personal recordings from survivors.
What you should do
Most of you have probably already seen Schincler's List, if you haven't then you probably should despite what I said. Without films like this some of us would probably have no knowledge at all about such important moments in history.
Whether they're entirely accurate or not they open up curiosity to learn more.
It pains me to say it but I think the negatives outweigh the positives on this for me. The sets are incredible though and the fact that they managed to get hoards of people working together is no easy feat. It's certainly an epic achievement.
I have spoken to a few people since seeing it and mentioned the fact that I didn't like it filmed as black and white, I've been surprised at how many condescending responses I had. "Black and white films are difficult for some people to get used to." "They're not to everyone's tastes." For the record I love black and white movies, the issue I have with this one though is that it's so sharp that at times it looks unnatural. The joy of black and white movies is the feeling of a little age to the film. Perhaps this is just the curse of the modern age, but all the shots look amazingly crisp. I know, how often does someone moan about having filming that's too good for a film?
"Remember to take some tissues!" was the response I got when I told people I was going to see it, me being a crier I heeded the warning. I was left mostly unmoved though. The statements of fact and the scenes at Auschwitz certainly made me pause for thought and brought a tear to my eye but the dramatised sections generally didn't hold a lot of impact.
When Schindler has his departing scene it really felt that it should have been more emotional for the viewer but it came across a little hammy. Neeson's acting had been relatively understated the whole way through and they chose that moment for him to depart from that?
Some moments in history only need the facts, and while creatively this was a masterpiece (certainly the music was) I didn't feel that it was possible to get the gravity of the situation. In this instance I would personally like to know the real accounts and that would be achieved better by reading some books on the subject of watching personal recordings from survivors.
What you should do
Most of you have probably already seen Schincler's List, if you haven't then you probably should despite what I said. Without films like this some of us would probably have no knowledge at all about such important moments in history.
Whether they're entirely accurate or not they open up curiosity to learn more.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Chuck Steak in Books
Nov 11, 2019
Remember those action movies from the 80s and 90s? The ones where the chisel-jawed hero catches the bad guy via a convoluted and improbable plot, over the top action scenes and mass collateral damage? Chuck Steak doesn't just remember them. He IS them.
Maverick stop-at-nothing-even-if-it-causes-millions-of-dollars-of-damage-and-gets-me-suspended-again cop Chuck Steak (not the meat) has a new adversary. A bomb has been planted in his girlfriend and Chuck is being blackmailed into doing things he doesn't want to do, like be nice to his in-laws-to-be, become tolerant and accepting of minorities and work with a partner. He blunders through each increasingly ridiculous task, always managing it in unlikely ways, in the nick of time and causing maximum destruction in the process. But the mastermind behind the plan is always one step ahead. Has the apparently invincible Chuck Steak finally met his match?
First things first, this is in no way a serious book. As is fitting for the movie genre it is inspired by, everything is larger than life and twice as loud. There is however coherence to the plot (even though it does meander around for some gratuitous action scenes) and the twists, turns and red herrings thrown out in the final chapters as to who the villain is will certainly wrong foot many readers and in the end it does make some kind of sense.
There is also a subtext around acceptance of people who are different; Chuck and the police are portrayed very much as the intolerant knuckleheads of action movies, but his realisations that how he normally behaves could be grossly offensive provide some of the more striking moments of the book.
The prose is fast and loose, with flashbacks, changes of point of view and the occasional sub plot thrown in. The characterisation is bold, from the incredibly clichéd police captain to the more nuanced father in law. They bounce of each other in interesting ways and are each a key part of Chuck's journey. Some of the writing is a little cluttered and confused but that just adds to the feeling of this being a headlong rush to the final chapter.
80s and 90s action flicks were just 2 hours of pure escapist entertainment, never intended to be anything other than enormous fun. Chuck Steak captures the spirit of these well. An absolute riot to read.
Rated R for pretty much everything that makes things R rated
Maverick stop-at-nothing-even-if-it-causes-millions-of-dollars-of-damage-and-gets-me-suspended-again cop Chuck Steak (not the meat) has a new adversary. A bomb has been planted in his girlfriend and Chuck is being blackmailed into doing things he doesn't want to do, like be nice to his in-laws-to-be, become tolerant and accepting of minorities and work with a partner. He blunders through each increasingly ridiculous task, always managing it in unlikely ways, in the nick of time and causing maximum destruction in the process. But the mastermind behind the plan is always one step ahead. Has the apparently invincible Chuck Steak finally met his match?
First things first, this is in no way a serious book. As is fitting for the movie genre it is inspired by, everything is larger than life and twice as loud. There is however coherence to the plot (even though it does meander around for some gratuitous action scenes) and the twists, turns and red herrings thrown out in the final chapters as to who the villain is will certainly wrong foot many readers and in the end it does make some kind of sense.
There is also a subtext around acceptance of people who are different; Chuck and the police are portrayed very much as the intolerant knuckleheads of action movies, but his realisations that how he normally behaves could be grossly offensive provide some of the more striking moments of the book.
The prose is fast and loose, with flashbacks, changes of point of view and the occasional sub plot thrown in. The characterisation is bold, from the incredibly clichéd police captain to the more nuanced father in law. They bounce of each other in interesting ways and are each a key part of Chuck's journey. Some of the writing is a little cluttered and confused but that just adds to the feeling of this being a headlong rush to the final chapter.
80s and 90s action flicks were just 2 hours of pure escapist entertainment, never intended to be anything other than enormous fun. Chuck Steak captures the spirit of these well. An absolute riot to read.
Rated R for pretty much everything that makes things R rated