Search
Search results
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
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 9, 2019
Half baked
jumanji next level is like an uninteresting game cutscene thats also unskippable its dull, frustrating, overlong and makes you wish you were doing something else. I actualy quite enjoyed the first instalment I it had some genuinely good ideas, great set pieces and some really fun action so i find it sad to say the sequel is not worth your time at all. Starting in the real world here lies its fist problem: not only are all the teens really boring and generic characters they are all also played by people that just cant act which absolutely kills any attachment to the characters and makes them seem more like one dimensional npcs in a cheap videogame. This would all be fine if the film jumped quickly into the game and the action but instead we get stuck with them for so long that i was begining to get restless way before we even begin to enter the jumanji. Once we do enter the game things do pick up but not by much as what we get is essentially a long drawn out re-skin of the first movie stuffed full of repetative humour and references. Its also contains some of the worst shot/lazy action scenes i have seen this year with not only poor cgi that offers no sense of weight but also no sense of thrill or excitement either. Long unnecessary scenes also plague the film too adding nothing to the story or character development and some jokes even go on for way to long even though they muster no laughs at all. Theres definitely some fun in watching the rock, kevin heart, jack black and karen gilinham act like thier in movie real world counterparts as they do a really impressive job of imitating the teen characters better than the teen actors do them selves. Another huge problem comes from each game character having only three lives as this immediately removes all threat/peril from the movie and again kills all tension too. If i had to sum up this sequel i would say its a movie made for people that talk through movies and i garantee if you go and see it at the cinema i bet thats what people will do because it lacks anything to keep even casual movie goers engaged and focused. More like disappointing dlc that you paid for upfront than 'next level' this movie really isnt worth your time. If you own the previous movies id stay home in the warm and watch them instead save yourself an over two hour slog of bad jokes and poor action.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2005) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
About As Memorable As My Last Poop
Based on the long-running comic book, four people are given superpowers when they come in contact with cosmic energy out in space.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 5
Not exactly how you start a movie. Definitely could have scored this lower, but there was at least a glimmer of hope shown in the first ten minutes that told me this movie wouldn’t be a total waste of space. Still, my hopes weren’t high.
Characters: 3
I had some issues here, but I struggled with my scoring. Reason being, I LOVE the comic book characters and appreciate their depth. Yeah, none of that is shown in this movie. The characters aren’t layered, rather they have mere personality types, none of which I was really in love with. They made Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) an over-the-top dick while Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), the brains of the group, can’t understand the concept of normal social interaction to save his life. I won’t even waste time profiling the other lame-duck characters. You get the point.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 2
Entertainment Value: 0
At no point during Fantastic Four did I ever say, “Ok, we might have something here.” It was bad on top of bad from beginning to end. Just an unapologetic dumpster fire. Sitting through this movie again is what I envision Hell to be like.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 4
Talk about a slow-moving film. Not only does it take forever for scenes to get to the point, but they divert off into random tangents that ultimately amount to nothing. This is a don’t-pause-when-you-go-to-the-bathroom movie. Drove me crazy.
Plot: 2
There is a scene that happens on a bridge where people need saving. Not only do all four of the superheroes magically end up on the bridge at the same time (they weren’t together previously), but Thing’s wife shows up as well just to walk away in shame because of how gross he’s become. I laughed my ass off! And that should tell you enough about what I think of the plot.
Resolution: 4
I give it a four because it ended. No, the ending wasn’t any better than the rest of the movie, but damnit, it ended and the fact that it finally came to a close put me out of my misery.
Overall: 34
There are bad movies that make me want to stop watching and reviewing movies altogether because of how horrible they are. And then there’s Fantastic Four. This movie is torture to the millionth degree.
Acting: 7
Beginning: 5
Not exactly how you start a movie. Definitely could have scored this lower, but there was at least a glimmer of hope shown in the first ten minutes that told me this movie wouldn’t be a total waste of space. Still, my hopes weren’t high.
Characters: 3
I had some issues here, but I struggled with my scoring. Reason being, I LOVE the comic book characters and appreciate their depth. Yeah, none of that is shown in this movie. The characters aren’t layered, rather they have mere personality types, none of which I was really in love with. They made Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) an over-the-top dick while Reed Richards (Ioan Gruffudd), the brains of the group, can’t understand the concept of normal social interaction to save his life. I won’t even waste time profiling the other lame-duck characters. You get the point.
Cinematography/Visuals: 2
Conflict: 2
Entertainment Value: 0
At no point during Fantastic Four did I ever say, “Ok, we might have something here.” It was bad on top of bad from beginning to end. Just an unapologetic dumpster fire. Sitting through this movie again is what I envision Hell to be like.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 4
Talk about a slow-moving film. Not only does it take forever for scenes to get to the point, but they divert off into random tangents that ultimately amount to nothing. This is a don’t-pause-when-you-go-to-the-bathroom movie. Drove me crazy.
Plot: 2
There is a scene that happens on a bridge where people need saving. Not only do all four of the superheroes magically end up on the bridge at the same time (they weren’t together previously), but Thing’s wife shows up as well just to walk away in shame because of how gross he’s become. I laughed my ass off! And that should tell you enough about what I think of the plot.
Resolution: 4
I give it a four because it ended. No, the ending wasn’t any better than the rest of the movie, but damnit, it ended and the fact that it finally came to a close put me out of my misery.
Overall: 34
There are bad movies that make me want to stop watching and reviewing movies altogether because of how horrible they are. And then there’s Fantastic Four. This movie is torture to the millionth degree.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
My anticipation for the second part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, much like my anticipation of Part 1, was accompanied by great reluctance to witness the culmination of 10 years of storytelling.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Opening exactly where Part 1 left off, we find Harry, Hermione and Ron continuing on their quest to locate the remaining Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) has implanted a part of his soul. Destruction of these Horcruxes help weaken Voldemort. Polyjuice, goblins and a dragon ride provide some humor and thrills and eventually leads to the trios’ return to Hogwarts, where Alan Rickman’s Severus Snape is now the hated headmaster. Voldemort has attained the powerful Elder Wand and has turned his evil sights on the school in hopes of drawing Harry out. Along with his questionably loyal Deatheaters, they surround Hogwarts and prepare to attack.
At times the storytelling is a bit slow, at times too abrupt. While the special Harry Potter 3D glasses were amusing, I didn’t notice any spectacular effects that would warrant the extra charge to watch this movie in 3D. As is the case for converted 3D movies, the effects are more of a distracting afterthought than a real enhancement. For those not familiar with the books, the storylines may be a bit convoluted but your patience will be rewarded. Daniel Radcliffe’s matured Harry Potter is grim and resolute, his best friends Hermione and Ron (Emma Watson and Rupert Grinch) are aptly desperate but determined. Taking a stand with them, wile making their cinematic curtain call, are many of their Hogwarts professors, their classmates in Dumbldore’s Army and their mentors in the Order of the Phoenix. There are more heartwrenching moments than heartwarming parts as Harry learns more about the events surrounding his existence and what he must do to defeat Voldemort.
Few books, and far fewer movie adaptations, have captured the hearts of such a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. The valiant attempts by directors Chris Columbus, Alfonso Cuaron, Mike Newell and, lastly, David Yates, to recreate the vast, enchanting wizarding world imagined by J.K. Rowling, have deservedly garnered the franchise a loyal and enthusiastic fanbase. Yet, as lush and vivid as the movies have been, they only touched on some of the best parts of the books. Needless to say, I wasn’t expecting perfection. But what I saw in Part 2 was pretty darn close. While movie adaptations of beloved stories will always leave serious fans wanting more, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is a fitting finale to this epic tale.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Playmobil: The Movie (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
What can I say about Playmobil The Movie? You know how in real life Playmobil is naff when you compare it to Lego? ... Yeah.
"It's obviously a rip off of the Lego movies!" - Direct quote from my friend's son, and he's not wrong. It's basically a reverse, here people go into the fictional world whereas in the Lego movies the fictional world experiences the real world. There are many things that are reversed. Lego remembers its characters limitations, Playmobil doesn't. Lego is entertaining, Playmobil... isn't. I like daft humour so this should have been a hit with me. "But Emma, it isn't made for you." Well yes, but even I laugh at children's films, and there's definitely an aspect of it directed at adults and they don't hit either.
The beginning of the film is an experience. It opens with a musical number that doesn't have any impact at all, it's also quickly forgotten as the fun is interrupted by police officers arriving at the house. I saw with my jaw slowly dropping, this is a U rated films, they weren't really going to start it by... oh, yep, they did.
This change of mood was quite shocking to watch. It's an emergency stop of plot points, and not something that just adults would notice. A child a few rows in front turned to his mum and said "what happened?!" I unfortunately couldn't hear how she responded.
When it comes to humour, apart from one chuckle that appears in the trailer there was only one thing that I laughed at. I really did laugh out loud. It wasn't a great joke, it was verging on dad joke territory but the delivery was incredible.
I was surprisingly annoyed by the fact that at the beginning (and in the trailer) Marla doesn't know how to walk with her new Playmobil legs, yet moments later she's crawling before going back to not knowing how to walk. I don't expect a masterpiece, but I do expect at least some consistency.
Playmobil leaves me at a loss, I can't really identify anything exciting about the film. The story isn't very inspiring and the characters don't give you anything to identify with despite having the opportunity. The film also suffers from excess, storyline that goes nowhere, characters that don't get used for any real purpose... I don't think this was a particularly good attempt at bringing this toy to life, it might have been more suited to short skits in a TV series or the cutting room floor.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/playmobil-movie-review.html
"It's obviously a rip off of the Lego movies!" - Direct quote from my friend's son, and he's not wrong. It's basically a reverse, here people go into the fictional world whereas in the Lego movies the fictional world experiences the real world. There are many things that are reversed. Lego remembers its characters limitations, Playmobil doesn't. Lego is entertaining, Playmobil... isn't. I like daft humour so this should have been a hit with me. "But Emma, it isn't made for you." Well yes, but even I laugh at children's films, and there's definitely an aspect of it directed at adults and they don't hit either.
The beginning of the film is an experience. It opens with a musical number that doesn't have any impact at all, it's also quickly forgotten as the fun is interrupted by police officers arriving at the house. I saw with my jaw slowly dropping, this is a U rated films, they weren't really going to start it by... oh, yep, they did.
This change of mood was quite shocking to watch. It's an emergency stop of plot points, and not something that just adults would notice. A child a few rows in front turned to his mum and said "what happened?!" I unfortunately couldn't hear how she responded.
When it comes to humour, apart from one chuckle that appears in the trailer there was only one thing that I laughed at. I really did laugh out loud. It wasn't a great joke, it was verging on dad joke territory but the delivery was incredible.
I was surprisingly annoyed by the fact that at the beginning (and in the trailer) Marla doesn't know how to walk with her new Playmobil legs, yet moments later she's crawling before going back to not knowing how to walk. I don't expect a masterpiece, but I do expect at least some consistency.
Playmobil leaves me at a loss, I can't really identify anything exciting about the film. The story isn't very inspiring and the characters don't give you anything to identify with despite having the opportunity. The film also suffers from excess, storyline that goes nowhere, characters that don't get used for any real purpose... I don't think this was a particularly good attempt at bringing this toy to life, it might have been more suited to short skits in a TV series or the cutting room floor.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/playmobil-movie-review.html
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.