Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moana (2016) in Movies
Mar 20, 2020
A delightful journey
In what is probably not a surprise to those of you that know me well, I keep a list of films that I have seen and a list of "top films I need to catch up with." (I know, that makes me a "film nerd" and I wear that badge proudly). In perusing the list, I saw that I had yet to see the 2016 Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson Disney animated flick Moana, so thought I'd check it out.
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I did...for I was thoroughly entertained by the story, the characters, the visuals and the music. How is this film not mentioned in the same breath with FROZEN? It is terrific.
Set in the South Pacific, MOANA, the 56th Disney Animated film, tells the tale of...well...Moana...who works with the Demigod Maui to reverse a curse that he started.
Hawaii native Auli'l Cravalho was perfectly cast as the voice of Moana, she is the perfect blend of perky, smart and grounded with a singing voice that is strong and bold. But this film belongs to Dwayne Johnson as Maui. His demigod is brash, egotistical, and cocky...but there is a tenderness and vulnerability to his character that makes Maui lovable and not arrogant and annoying. This is a delicate balance to make and Johnson balances it perfectly. He has a natural charm and charisma that shines through his characterization. I couldn't think of anyone else that could have pulled this role off - oh...did I mention - he sings!
And that is another part of this film that I was surprised by. The music is first rate. As written by Lin-Manuel Miranda (Broadway's HAMILTON) and Opetaia Foa'i and Mark Mancina, the songs are joyous, fun and drive the plot and the characterizations forward. AS does the direction by Ron Clements and John Musker. It is a fast paced film that doesn't really slow down for audiences to think too much about the plot or plot machinations...and that is a good thing.
Is it a perfect film? Well..no. I found the character of the Sea Creature Tamatoa (Jermaine Clement) and the accompanying song to be..."meh"...it was a bump in a fun road. And...the way the plot was resolved was not entirely satisfying for me.
But...these are nits...for MOANA is more focused on the journey - and the relationship between Maui and Moana - than the destination. And this journey is a delightful one to go on.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated On the Come Up in Books
Apr 4, 2019
This was an excellent follow-up to THE HATE YOU GIVE. Man, Angie Thomas can just flat out write, and the characters and worlds she creates are second to none. This book occurs in the same neighborhood as THUG, picking up a year after the riots. The neighborhood is still reeling, and nothing is quite the same.
"I'm a hoodlum from a bunch of nothing."
Bri is a wonderful character--a realistic teenager struggling with her love life and school, as well as the systematic issues of poverty, racism, drug dealing, and more facing her neighborhood, peers, and family. She's severely affected by what happened to her parents: the death of her father, who is famous in the Garden, and her mom's past drug use. The book does a great job of showing the pressures on everyone in Bri's family--her older brother went to college, but is back, living at home and working in a pizza shop, trying to help his mom out. Her mom is still paying for her past sins: trying to get a job isn't easy, nor is it easy to keep the faith of your teenage daughter, who calls her mom by her first name. And Bri--well she wants to become a rapper and earn money to get her family out of poverty. As such, she doesn't always make the best choices. And, to her, it almost seems like rapper is the only choice for freedom.
"That's how it goes though. The drug dealers in my neighborhood aren't struggling. Everybody else is."
Don't get me wrong, though. While this book is beautiful and does such a great job at showing so many of the challenges facing Bri and the Garden's community, it's also an engaging and funny read. As I said, Thomas is such an amazing writer. The church scenes in this novel are priceless: I was laughing at loud at some points. And Bri is just so vivid in her characteristics. She's a self-proclaimed "nerd" who loves things like Star Wars and some of her references and jokes in the books are just hilarious.
The supporting cast in this one is great--Bri's brother, her friends (including a gay BFF!), Aunt Pooh, the church biddies, and more. They all jump off the pages just like Bri. Much like THUG, this is a story of family at its core and even if you'll want to shake Bri for some of her bad decisions, it's pretty much impossible not to love her, her family, and her friends.
Overall, I really liked this book. It's well-written, tackles some serious topics in a great way, and yet is funny and poignant as well. I highly recommend it. 4+ stars.
"I'm a hoodlum from a bunch of nothing."
Bri is a wonderful character--a realistic teenager struggling with her love life and school, as well as the systematic issues of poverty, racism, drug dealing, and more facing her neighborhood, peers, and family. She's severely affected by what happened to her parents: the death of her father, who is famous in the Garden, and her mom's past drug use. The book does a great job of showing the pressures on everyone in Bri's family--her older brother went to college, but is back, living at home and working in a pizza shop, trying to help his mom out. Her mom is still paying for her past sins: trying to get a job isn't easy, nor is it easy to keep the faith of your teenage daughter, who calls her mom by her first name. And Bri--well she wants to become a rapper and earn money to get her family out of poverty. As such, she doesn't always make the best choices. And, to her, it almost seems like rapper is the only choice for freedom.
"That's how it goes though. The drug dealers in my neighborhood aren't struggling. Everybody else is."
Don't get me wrong, though. While this book is beautiful and does such a great job at showing so many of the challenges facing Bri and the Garden's community, it's also an engaging and funny read. As I said, Thomas is such an amazing writer. The church scenes in this novel are priceless: I was laughing at loud at some points. And Bri is just so vivid in her characteristics. She's a self-proclaimed "nerd" who loves things like Star Wars and some of her references and jokes in the books are just hilarious.
The supporting cast in this one is great--Bri's brother, her friends (including a gay BFF!), Aunt Pooh, the church biddies, and more. They all jump off the pages just like Bri. Much like THUG, this is a story of family at its core and even if you'll want to shake Bri for some of her bad decisions, it's pretty much impossible not to love her, her family, and her friends.
Overall, I really liked this book. It's well-written, tackles some serious topics in a great way, and yet is funny and poignant as well. I highly recommend it. 4+ stars.
Ross (3282 KP) rated Stormblood in Books
Jul 14, 2020
Fairly mediocre sci-fi
I received an advance copy of this book from the publishers and Netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Stormblood is set in a world where the human race has agreed terms with numerous alien races and Harmony governs the included races (the Common). Vakov Fukasawa (a character whose name is more fun to say than he is to read about) is a retired Reaper - that is, he was injected with alien DNA which gave him the rage and healing powers needed to become a super-soldier in the earlier Reaper Wars. He is hired to investigate reports of attacks on or attacks by his former colleagues, as reports of them "bluing-out" and dealing out devastation are mounting. This may well involve him being pitted against his younger brother who feels Vakov abandoned him to their cruel father.
Throughout the book, the story is told purely by telling the reader. Fukasawa finds himself in an extreme situation, having thrown himself in recklessly, and is almost always captured, told some crucial details, which dictate the next stage of the plot, and escapes or is rescued.
The world-building had so much promise, being a form of city built in an asteroid. However it wasn't very well described and I felt quite lost and really struggled to picture the setting. At times I had completely forgotten where the action was happening, and why.
The narrative is quite frustrating as well. What starts off as nice flowing narration with analogies, similes and metaphors, this quickly becomes at the expense of the pacing of the book. A number of times someone responded to a statement that was several paragraphs previous, with thick descriptions and side-tracked passages coming in between, making the reader go back and see what they were responding to.
As with most modern sci-fi, a number of cringeworthy technical terms have been made up and are not explained well enough to allow all but the most avid sci-fi tech-nerd to picture what they are supposed to refer to. See "slingshiv", "thin-gun", "micronades" etc etc. At times, these terms were used so frequently in long rambling passages listing tech and armoury that it may as well have been in a foreign language.
Speaking of which, the world the book takes place in is very reminiscent of Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon, even down to the part-Eastern European/part Japanese names. Fans of those books (which I suffered with similarly on the made-up technical terms) may enjoy this.
Overall, a great idea but needs some work on the pacing, how the plot is revealed (i.e. using different tricks and scenarios) and the narrative.
Stormblood is set in a world where the human race has agreed terms with numerous alien races and Harmony governs the included races (the Common). Vakov Fukasawa (a character whose name is more fun to say than he is to read about) is a retired Reaper - that is, he was injected with alien DNA which gave him the rage and healing powers needed to become a super-soldier in the earlier Reaper Wars. He is hired to investigate reports of attacks on or attacks by his former colleagues, as reports of them "bluing-out" and dealing out devastation are mounting. This may well involve him being pitted against his younger brother who feels Vakov abandoned him to their cruel father.
Throughout the book, the story is told purely by telling the reader. Fukasawa finds himself in an extreme situation, having thrown himself in recklessly, and is almost always captured, told some crucial details, which dictate the next stage of the plot, and escapes or is rescued.
The world-building had so much promise, being a form of city built in an asteroid. However it wasn't very well described and I felt quite lost and really struggled to picture the setting. At times I had completely forgotten where the action was happening, and why.
The narrative is quite frustrating as well. What starts off as nice flowing narration with analogies, similes and metaphors, this quickly becomes at the expense of the pacing of the book. A number of times someone responded to a statement that was several paragraphs previous, with thick descriptions and side-tracked passages coming in between, making the reader go back and see what they were responding to.
As with most modern sci-fi, a number of cringeworthy technical terms have been made up and are not explained well enough to allow all but the most avid sci-fi tech-nerd to picture what they are supposed to refer to. See "slingshiv", "thin-gun", "micronades" etc etc. At times, these terms were used so frequently in long rambling passages listing tech and armoury that it may as well have been in a foreign language.
Speaking of which, the world the book takes place in is very reminiscent of Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon, even down to the part-Eastern European/part Japanese names. Fans of those books (which I suffered with similarly on the made-up technical terms) may enjoy this.
Overall, a great idea but needs some work on the pacing, how the plot is revealed (i.e. using different tricks and scenarios) and the narrative.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Gate (1987) in Movies
Sep 29, 2019
Gremlins meets Explorers in some good 80's fun!
After a lightning storm, a major tree get uprooted in the suburban back yard of Glen and his sometimes nice big sister, Al. Glen and his best friend Terry proceed to investigate and discover some cool geode stones. At the same time, Glen and Al's parents are going away and leaving the teen and pre-teens home alone (doesn't this always happen in 80's movies).
All seems well enough until the boys split the geode and it spurts out some ancient writing that Glen reads aloud. Al decides to have a party while her parents are away (go figure) where Glen is levitated during a mini seance. Terry discovers during one of his headbanging sessions some of these events coincidentally are said to open a demonic gate where strange creatures can emerge, torment those they find and ravage the Earth.
The three protagonists decide to try and close the "gate" by reading ancient text and Bible verses. This proves successful and small, feisty demons begin to appear and creep into their house. After several run ins, more unusual things start happening within the home, possibly as a precursor for something even bigger on the horizon.
The teens must formulate a plan to dispose of their new house-guests before it is too late!
Funny that Glen is played by a very young Stephen Dorff in his very first role. He reminds me of a young Ethan Hawke in Explorers as his nerd friend Terry reminds me of River Phoenix in the same film.
The movie is cheesy with dated special and optical effects that modern audiences might get annoyed by or find lame and of poor quality. The small demons are more funny than they are scary, but I still enjoyed seeing them on screen. I actually thought it was stop motion animation similar to a Ray Harryhausen film like Clash of the Titans, but they were actually actors in demon costumes and then shot in forced perspective to make them seem smaller.
The movie is only 85 minutes and the plot does take a little while to get going. The first half of the movie is more like every 80's movie you have ever seen with dated hairstyles, clothing and dialogue, but once the demon stuff manifests it becomes more interesting.
Even though PG-13 with some semi scary moments, the movie does seem the style of Gremlins meaning maybe aiming more for a younger audience rather than being excessively disgusting or graphic.
Hopefully you can put aside the elements I mentioned that aren't up to today's standards and enjoy the cute, interesting story this film inhabits. I surely did.
All seems well enough until the boys split the geode and it spurts out some ancient writing that Glen reads aloud. Al decides to have a party while her parents are away (go figure) where Glen is levitated during a mini seance. Terry discovers during one of his headbanging sessions some of these events coincidentally are said to open a demonic gate where strange creatures can emerge, torment those they find and ravage the Earth.
The three protagonists decide to try and close the "gate" by reading ancient text and Bible verses. This proves successful and small, feisty demons begin to appear and creep into their house. After several run ins, more unusual things start happening within the home, possibly as a precursor for something even bigger on the horizon.
The teens must formulate a plan to dispose of their new house-guests before it is too late!
Funny that Glen is played by a very young Stephen Dorff in his very first role. He reminds me of a young Ethan Hawke in Explorers as his nerd friend Terry reminds me of River Phoenix in the same film.
The movie is cheesy with dated special and optical effects that modern audiences might get annoyed by or find lame and of poor quality. The small demons are more funny than they are scary, but I still enjoyed seeing them on screen. I actually thought it was stop motion animation similar to a Ray Harryhausen film like Clash of the Titans, but they were actually actors in demon costumes and then shot in forced perspective to make them seem smaller.
The movie is only 85 minutes and the plot does take a little while to get going. The first half of the movie is more like every 80's movie you have ever seen with dated hairstyles, clothing and dialogue, but once the demon stuff manifests it becomes more interesting.
Even though PG-13 with some semi scary moments, the movie does seem the style of Gremlins meaning maybe aiming more for a younger audience rather than being excessively disgusting or graphic.
Hopefully you can put aside the elements I mentioned that aren't up to today's standards and enjoy the cute, interesting story this film inhabits. I surely did.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Mar 30, 2018
Almost a perfect film
I was flipping channels the other day and ran across BACK TO THE FUTURE, it was just about to start and since I hadn't seen it in quite awhile, I figured I'd catch the first part of it before venturing off to other surfing opportunities. As often happens in this sort of situation, I ended up transfixed by this film and watched the whole thing. After it was over, I asked myself why did I enjoy this film so much and my answer was fascinating (at least to me) -
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BACK TO THE FUTURE is about as perfect of a film as there is.
Why? Let's start with the structure of this film. It follows the classic 3 Act structure. ACT 1: set up the premise, the gimmick (if any) and the stakes. ACT 2: escalate the stakes and throw in complications and obstacles. ACT 3: Resolve everything.
Seems like a pretty simple formula, right? So why do so many get it wrong? Quite simply, they don't keep it simple and then execute (almost to perfection) the simplicity of the structure. Let's break down the 3 Acts of BACK TO THE FUTURE.
ACT 1 - set up the premise, the gimmick and the stakes. The premise & gimmick is simple, time travel is possible and our hero travels back in time and is stranded there. The stakes are even simpler - our hero must find a way to get Back to the Future.
ACT 2 - escalate the stakes and throw in complicaitons and obstacles. The stakes are escalated by the fact that our hero interrupts the timeline of when his mother met his father, thus there is the very real possibility that he will cease to exist for his parents never met. Our hero must find a way to bring his mother and father together. The complications are that his parents are not the boring old fuddy-duddy's that our hero thought they were, his father is a peeping-Tom nerd and his mother is a randy high-schooler who falls in love (lust?) with our hero, her son. Further complicating things is that the time machine must find enough power to make the time travel device (the flux-capacitor!) work, power that is not readily available in this timeline. Adding one more complication to the mix is the school bully who is constantly after our hero.
ACT 3 - resolve everything. This is where this film excels. EVERY loose end is tied up. Our hero find a way to reunite his mother and father, the bully is put in his place, a source of energy is found and our hero's journey comes to a succesful conclusion.
There is much, much more to this film than those plot points, but I just wanted to show how deceptively simple and efficient this plot is. Kudo's must go out to screenwriter's Robert Zemeckis (more on him later) and Bob Gale for coming up with this idea and executing it so well. Gale (1941, KOLCHAK: THE NIGHT STALKER) said he came up with this idea when he saw his father's high school yearbook and dreamed about going back to meet him. He stated that he doubted that he and his father would have been friends.
An interesting side fact: The University of Southern California Film school's writing classes use the screenplay for Back to the Future as the model of "The Perfect Screenplay". So, I rest my case.
But a "perfect" screenplay would be worthless without near perfect execution of putting the words and actions up on the screen - and this film achieves that as well. Director (and co-screenwriter) Robert Zemeckis (WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT, FORREST GUMP) cleary had a vision of how to make this film and did not waiver from it. The action is strong, the fluidness of the film is solid and the performances are all top-notch. The only thing that might knock this film down a peg or two is some of the 32 "special effects" shots that - to look at it these days - seem somewhat archaic (see the flames between Doc Brown's and Marty's feet when the DeLorean first goes forward in time). But for the time, these special effects are state-of-the-art.
Speaking of performances, Michael J. Fox became a movie star with this film, and rightfully so. His Marty McFly is charming, quirky, intelligent, dorky - all at the same time. His uncomfortableness with his teen age mother is palatable. Credit must go with Director Zemeckis, who - after he couldn't get Fox released from his contract on the TV show FAMILY TIES - went (famously) with his 2nd choice, Eric Stoltz. When Stolt's seriousness and "method" acting was not meshing with the type of film he wanted to make, Zemeckis made the bold decision to fire Stoltz and worked out a deal where he can use Fox at night while Fox shot Family ties during the day.
Playing against Fox, brilliantly, is Christopher Lloyd as "Doc" Emmit Brown. A two-time Emmy winner (at the time) for playing crazy Jim Ignatowski on the TV show TAXI, Lloyd played Doc Brown as "part Einstein, part composer Leopold Stokowski", creating what would be the benchmark for "brilliant, scatter-brained scientist". Leah Thompson does the finest performance of her career as Marty's mother and Crispin Glover was beyond quirky as Marty's nerd/loser Dad. Finally Thomas F. Wilson is the embodiment of bully as "Biff" Tannen.
After the success of this film, two other BACK TO THE FUTURE films were made - films that I feel were good, but somewhat diluted the perfection of this film. No matter. Sit down, relax and enjoy one of the most "perfect" films ever made.
Letter Grade: A+
A rare 10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
New Vibes, New Dopeness
When I first saw that Sony was playing nice with Disney/Marvel, I almost lost it when I saw that Spider-Man would make an appearance in Captain America: Civil War. Nerd Moment: I’ve always thought that all of the Marvel properties belonged together and this was a step in the right direction. It’s been amazing what’s happened since. In this third reboot since the new century, Spider-Man: Homecoming is the story of a young Peter Parker handling his role as a teenager and a webslinging superhero.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Gaz Coombes recommended Shields by Grizzly Bear in Music (curated)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Wild Storm, Vol. 2 in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I am old enough to remember when Jean Grey became Dark Phoenix. I am also old enough to remember reading all the Image Comics titles in the 90's, because they were cool! Not all of them (*cough* Rob Liefeld's YOUNGBLOOD and assorted other titles he helmed) were good, but some, like WILDC.A.T.s and WETWORKS, were a little cooler and better other than the aforementioned titles. Those "cooler" books split off and became a separate publishing imprint, Wildstorm. Unfortunately, some things, not unlike THE A-TEAM or THE GREATEST AMERICAN HERO, don't hold up as well, but they will always hold a "special spot" in our nerdy, li'l hearts!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
In the late 90's, a writer came onboard looking to revamp one of the so-so books, STORMWATCH. That writer was Warren Ellis, and the series that spun out of the revamped STORMWATCH was THE AUTHORITY. With that book, Ellis made one hell of an impression with a lot of people, myself included, earning him, and THE AUTHORITY, a very high spot on the Nerd Chart.
I skipped out when, in 2017 (I think), DC Comics absorbed the Wildstorm characters/books, making them "exist" in the same comics universe as Superman and Batman!
Jump ahead to 2018. Warren Ellis approaches DC, offering THE WILD STORM, a massive (24 issues!) reboot of the Wildstorm universe. They greenlight it. And, what a ride!
Forget everything about the 90s WILDC.A.T.s, Grifter, even THE AUTHORITY. This is a blank slate, with so much potential!
Volume 2, reprinting issues 7-12, is just.. words elude me. It's not mind-numbing like a lot of what Marvel and DC are churning out of late, but it certainly makes my brain itch. Watching familiar faces being reworked and presented in a totally different way is fun and interesting at the same time. It's also equally entertaining to see equally familiar plots and sub-plots taken apart and put back together in an uniquely satisfying way.
The series is not TOO wordy, yet wordy enough that the story gives us much to chew on and reflect long after this volume, or any of the individual issues themselves, are read. My hat goes off to Warren Ellis, for he has clear outdone himself, something I did not think could be done!
However, as much as I was taken in by Ellis' writing, it is also worth noting Jon Davis-Hunt's art. At times, he reminded me of Keith Giffen's LEGION OF SUPER-HEROES work (back when Tom and Mary Bierbaum were writing it), simple, at first viewing, but further study shows so much more in each panel. I felt his art suits the angle that Ellis is shooting for, and for that, I am glad that he seems to be invested in the art until the 24th, and final, issue of the series is completed.
Look, plain and simple. Go read Volume, because you will most certainly want to read this volume, and then, Volume 3, when it comes out in March. This is a smart series, and if you are old enough to remember the 90s Wildstorm characters (like me), you'll be sorry if you don't check it out! 'Nuff said!
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/