Search
Search results
Binocular Vision
Clare Skeats and Edith Pearlman
Book
Edith Pearlman's Binocular Vision are the collected stories of an award-winning author who has been...
The Abyssal Plain: The R'lyeh Cycle
1.0
Rate It
Book
With The Abyssal Plain, Holloway and Talley have managed to transform the Cthulhu Mythos into...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Wild, creepy & a little stressful
When Joe Lynch and his young son, William, spot his wife's car while out driving, they decide to surprise her. Instead they see his wife, Melissa, fighting with a friend, Ben. Joe knows he should help Melissa, but when he goes to confront Ben, it goes horribly wrong. The two fight and after Ben hits him, Joe pushes him back and Ben falls and hits his head. At the same time, his son has an asthma attack--and realizing he doesn't have William's inhaler--Joe has to make a choice: race home for the inhaler or stay and make sure Ben is okay. He chooses his son, setting off a chain of crazy events that will forever alter the course of his life.
"I put the car in gear. Made a spur-of-the-moment decision that would change my life. 'Let's go and surprise Mummy.'"
This was an odd book that messes with your head as much as all the insane events seem to do to Joe's. It got off to a slow start for me, and I almost didn't keep reading, but I have a terrible time putting any book in a "DNF" pile, and of course, this one picked up and got pretty exciting about halfway through. (This only adds to my inability to ever not finish a book.)
The main shtick with this one is sort of an unreliable narrator/unreliable plot, as you really don't know who or what to believe as you read. Hence the title, obviously. As it all happens we have Joe, who sort of bumbles along, our hapless narrator, who seems to think he's in control, but really, just no. Poor guy, he's certainly not the brightest--just this clueless guy whom I had a tough time rooting for, hence my inability to really get into the book.
Yes, most of the cast of characters around him are lying to him in some fashion, but still. After Joe leaves Ben in the parking garage to save William, he finds some weird and cryptic posts on his Facebook page, because (of course) he lost his (unlocked) cell phone during his altercation with (obviously tech-savvy) Ben who runs (wait for it) a technology firm. Then Melissa reveals to him that the wealthy Ben has been pining after her for ages, despite that fact that Ben's wife, Beth, is Melissa's best friend. Things unravel from there. I'll admit that they don't necessarily happen predictably, but they do happen in a crazy fashion, so be prepared to suspend a lot of your disbelief.
The book is kind of wild, a little creepy, and there's a good twist at the end, which bumped my rating up a half bomb. This wasn't a particularly fun read for me--it sort of stressed me out--and I didn't really like any of the characters, but once it picked it up, it was at least interesting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
"I put the car in gear. Made a spur-of-the-moment decision that would change my life. 'Let's go and surprise Mummy.'"
This was an odd book that messes with your head as much as all the insane events seem to do to Joe's. It got off to a slow start for me, and I almost didn't keep reading, but I have a terrible time putting any book in a "DNF" pile, and of course, this one picked up and got pretty exciting about halfway through. (This only adds to my inability to ever not finish a book.)
The main shtick with this one is sort of an unreliable narrator/unreliable plot, as you really don't know who or what to believe as you read. Hence the title, obviously. As it all happens we have Joe, who sort of bumbles along, our hapless narrator, who seems to think he's in control, but really, just no. Poor guy, he's certainly not the brightest--just this clueless guy whom I had a tough time rooting for, hence my inability to really get into the book.
Yes, most of the cast of characters around him are lying to him in some fashion, but still. After Joe leaves Ben in the parking garage to save William, he finds some weird and cryptic posts on his Facebook page, because (of course) he lost his (unlocked) cell phone during his altercation with (obviously tech-savvy) Ben who runs (wait for it) a technology firm. Then Melissa reveals to him that the wealthy Ben has been pining after her for ages, despite that fact that Ben's wife, Beth, is Melissa's best friend. Things unravel from there. I'll admit that they don't necessarily happen predictably, but they do happen in a crazy fashion, so be prepared to suspend a lot of your disbelief.
The book is kind of wild, a little creepy, and there's a good twist at the end, which bumped my rating up a half bomb. This wasn't a particularly fun read for me--it sort of stressed me out--and I didn't really like any of the characters, but once it picked it up, it was at least interesting.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
If you are looking for a refreshing Young-Adult read, with college unlike any other - this is the perfect book for you. I'd Tell You I Love You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You is the first book from the Gallagher Girl series, where we meet girls that go to a school for spies, and nobody except them, knows it.
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
The Gallagher Academy is a typical all-girls-school, except, instead of normal subjects, they learn advanced martial arts and chemical warfare studies, they have exams where they need to spy, or go unnoticed, or steal.
We meet Cammie Morgan, who happens to be the headmistress's daughter, and when she goes on a mission and gets noticed by a boy - everything changes and her life is suddenly everything but normal. She knows how to kill a man in seven different ways, and she can speak fourteen languages, but when a cute boy comes and says hi - she is definitely not trained for that. What's worst - he thinks she's just an ordinary girl, and she is falling in love with him.
Sure, she can tap his phone, hack into his computer, and track him through town without his ever being the wiser - but can she have a relationship with a regular boy who can never know the truth about her? Cammie may be an elite spy-in-training, but in her sophomore year, she's beginning her most dangerous mission - falling in love.
I loved the writing style, and I loved something new and refreshing - it is a plot that I haven't read before, and I really enjoyed it. Sometimes when it felt a bit childish, I would remember I am not thirteen anymore, but even now at twenty-one, I got lost into this silly world of spy girls and the drama and love life of Cammie.
I liked Cammie - she is the type of girl that you would love to have as a friend, because she always makes you giggle with her silly comments. I also liked how brave and honest she was - not always honest though… Sometimes, she was too whiney for her own good, and making little things out of nothing, but then again, all teens kind of do that all the time, so it's acceptable.
I loved her friends - they were such a team, and always covering their backs. I loved how, even despite all their differences, they manages to fit right in and have their own impact to the group friendship.
Overall, quite an enjoyable read and I would definitely recommend it to you guys, if you love anything YA, or fantasy, or spy girls, or college related. I enjoyed this book, and I wish I read it way sooner. I can't wait to read the rest of the series as well.
Thank you to my friend and author, Michael Kott, that send me this book after recommending it to me, as Ally Carter is one of his favourite authors, and he enjoyed this book as well. Check out his book Piasa - it is amazing!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In Time (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
t is said that time is money and in the new film “In Time” this statement takes on an entirely new meaning. In the future we learn that humans have been genetically created to stop aging at the age of 25. Once they reach this selected age, a clock starts to count down from one year. People can obtain more time via work, stealing it from others, or being gifted more time but once their clock hits zero, they expire or “Time Out” as it is called.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
As the film opens, we are introduced to Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a man who is three years past twenty five who lives at home with his mother (Olivia Wilde). Will starts each day with barely enough time on his clock for another day, so he dutifully heads off to work each day to earn more time. As does his mother and everyone he knows since workers are paid at the end of their shifts by having more time added to their accounts. Many need to work daily in order to see the next day. To stop working is to die and since everything from food to rent and clothing is paid for in time from an individual’s account, they often have to make the choice between a transaction or more hours of life.
One evening after work, Will encounters a man named Henry (Matt Bomer), with over 100 years remaining on his clock and cautions the man that in this area he is likely to attract thieves. Will’s warnings go unheeded and soon a group of thugs arrive forcing Will to whisk the man away to safety. During their night in hiding, the man tells Will that after living for over a century, he is tired of the way the system is and how the rich can live forever while the working poor suffer just to live another day.
Will awakens the next morning to find the man gone and that his clock has now been credited the 100 years. Will locates the man just in time to watch him time out with a smile as he watches the sun rise. Flush with new wealth, Will plans to move his mother out of the slums and into a better life but when tragedy strikes, Will decides to move to where the wealth is as to take them for all he can.
Will soon finds himself in a high stakes card game at a casino and in a desperate move finds himself wealthier than he ever imagined. His actions impress very wealthy banking magnet Philippie Weiss (Vincent Kartheiser), who introduces him to his daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). Will and Sylvia hit it off as she is intrigued by someone who came into money rather than being born with it and imagines what life would be like with some excitement.
Will and Sylvia soon have their worlds turned upside down when Will is suspected in the death of Henry and find themselves on the run from a Timekeeper named Raymond (Cillian Murphy), who wants to bring Will to justice. In a rapid series of events, Will and Sylvia must contend with Raymond, criminals, and a series of unsavory characters to regain their lost time before it is to late so they can implement their master plan to truly make a difference.
The film has some great social commentary and a great cast but is hindered by trying to be too many things. It works well as a science fiction film with elements of action and romance. Sadly the film goes off course by having Will and Sylvia act as a modern day Robin Hood duo taking on the powers-that-be to save the downtrodden masses. While it is a noble effort it derailed the momentum of the story as much of the tension and mystery of the story was lost. If one is wanted by thugs and the authorities, I would think that knocking over one high profile time bank after another would not be the way to keep a low profile.
That being said, despite the flaws, the film works and I found myself thinking about the characters and the setting they lived in days after the I screened the film. I had been concerned that the film would be nothing more than a knockoff of “Logan’s Run” but thankfully the film had enough new content to keep it fresh and interesting. In many ways, “In Time” is science fiction at its best as it allows for timely social commentary and provides a disturbing look at many age old debates on society’s endless quests for wealth, power, and youth.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The most fun you can have with Jack Black’s penis.
In 1995, Joe Johnston (“The Rocketeer”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”) directed “Jumanji” – a quirky, fantastical and dark film starring the late, great Robin Williams that got a rough critical reception at the time of release, but was embraced by the public and has gone on to be a modern classic. So when it was announced that a sequel was in the works 22 years later, my first reaction was “Oh no… is nothing sacred?”. It’s fair to say that I went into this flick with extremely low expectations.
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
But I have to say that – given this low base – I was pleasantly surprised. It’s actually quite a fun fantasy film that I predict that older kids will adore.
Seriously kick-ass. Karen Gillan – or rather one of her stunt doubles – gets hands… er… feet on with an aggressive level-character.
Initially set (neatly) in 1995, a teen – Alex (Nick Jonas, of the Jonas Brothers) unearths the board game Jumanji where it ended up buried in beach-sand at the end of the last film. “Who plays board games any more?” he scoffs, which the game hears and morphs into a game cartridge. Cheesy? Yes, but no more crazy than the goings on of the first film. Back in 2017, four high-school teens – geeky Spencer (Alex Wolff, “Patriot’s Day“); sports-jock Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain); self-obsessed beauty Bethany (Madison Iseman); and self-conscious, nerdy and shy Martha (Morgan Turner) – find the game and are sucked into it, having to complete all the game levels before they can escape.
Bethany (Madison Iseman) wishing she had her phone out for a selfie of this.
But they are not themselves in the game; they adopt the Avatars they chose to play: Dr Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson, “San Andreas“); Moose Finbar (Kevin Hart, “Get Hard“); Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan, “Dr Who”, “The Circle“; “Guardians of the Galaxy“); and Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black, “Sex Tape“, “Kong”). Can they combine their respective game talents – and suppress the human mental baggage they brought with them – to escape the game?
Avatars all. Kevin Hart, Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan and Jack Black.
There was a really dark time-travelling angle to the storyline of the original film – the traumatic start of Disney’s “Flight of the Navigator” was perhaps also borrowed from the concept in the book by Chris Van Allsburg. An attempt is made to recreate this in the sequel. I felt the first film rather pulled its punches though in favour of a Hollywood happy ending: will this be the case this time?
The film delivers laughs, but in a rather inconsistent fashion – it is mostly smile-worthy rather than laugh-out-loud funny. Much fun is had with the sex change of Bethany’s character, with Jack Black’s member featuring – erm – prominently. The characters all have strengths and weaknesses, like a game of Top Trumps, and this also entertains. But the most humour derives from the “three lives and it’s game over” device giving the opportunity for various grisly ends, often relating to the above referenced weaknesses.
A weakness for cake… something many of us have, but not quite to this extent.
Given the cast that’s been signed up, the acting is not exactly first rate although Karen Gillan shines as the brightest star. But “it’s not bloody Shakespeare” so ham-acting is not that much of a problem and the cast all have fun with their roles. Dwayne Johnson in particular gets to play out of character as the ‘nerd within the hunk’, and his “smouldering look” skill – arched eyebrow and all – is hilarious. Rhys Darby, looking so much like Hugh Jackman that I had to do several double takes, also turns up as an English game-guide in a Land Rover, and Bobby Cannavale (“Ant Man“) is Van Pelt, the villain of the piece.
There has been much controversy over Karen Gillan’s child-sized outfit. But she is clearly a parallel to the well-endowed Lara Croft, and young male teens didn’t play that game for the jungle scenery! She is meant to be a hot and sexy video game character, and man – does she deliver! Gillan is not just hot in the film: she is #lavahot. This makes her comic attempts at flirting lessons (as the internally conflicted Martha) especially funny. Hats off to her stunt doubles as well, for some awe-inspiring martial arts fight scenes.
Seeing treble. Karen Gillan (centre) with her talented stunt doubles Joanna Bennett and Jahnel Curfman.
Fans of “Lost” will delight in the Jumanji scenery, surely one of the most over-used film locations in Hawaii if not the world!
Where the film gets bogged down is in too much cod-faced philosophizing over the teenager’s “journeys”. This is laid on in such a clunky manner in the early (slow!) scenes that the script could have been significantly tightened up. And as I said above the script, written (rather obviously) by a raft of writers, could have been so much funnier. Most of the humour comes from visually seeing what’s happening: not from the dialogue.
Directed by Jake Kasdan (son of director and Star Wars/Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan) it’s really not half as bad as it could have been and certainly not as bad as I feared: I would gladly watch it again. For it’s target audience, which is probably kids aged 10 to 14, I think they will love it. And, unlike many holiday films, the parents won’t be totally bored either (especially the Dads, for the obvious misogynistic reasons outlined above!).
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Allegiant in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><u>Before Reading:</u></b>
I've been spoiled of the ending. Yep. SPOILED. Then I confirmed it at Barnes & Noble by finding out what chapter it happens on... which I won't say at all.
That should have stopped me from even picking up the last copy from the school library, or even asking, because I simply don't want to get smacked in the face by what happens in the end and how it truly leads there.
But I decided that I should simply take a chance on the series, because after all, I liked the other books in the series. It would be a different case if I didn't like Divergent and Insurgent.
And maybe I'll have different thoughts despite the ending when I do finish reading.
<b><u>After Reading:</b></u>
Let me just mention this first and foremost: this will not be a very rave review, despite the rating. So Divergent fans, if you cannot handle not-so-very-rave reviews, please turn around and walk out. If you can, or if you're remotely curious, feel free to continue on.
But don't say I didn't warn you. Because I certainly did, and I won't be warning again. Oh, and there may be a few spoilers. They're in red....
I’m just going to "Cut to the Chase" right this minute, and possibly earn a few tomatoes thrown at me as a result in the end. I’m pretty sure I’m entitled to my honest opinion, so if I lied, I wouldn’t be honest after all.
I do not mean the music video by Trish Thuy Trang featuring Cardin.
My nose might grow longer as well. ;)
Allegiant was dangling on a fish hook right above the surface of DNF Lake many times while reading it. Near the end though, after a HUGE – and by "HUGE," I mean at least 80% of the way through – chunk have been read, I kind of spared it and brought it back to shore. Some people may have noticed me complaining a bit – and giving a few brief review spoilers! – on Twitter or Personal Facebook. And yes, I have a Facebook. Please don't stalk me. :p
One of the review spoilers? I don't particularly like Tris as a character anymore. POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT! Possibly making it worse – and basically only L knows about this – I don't feel really sorry about what happened to her. Well, I'm upset, but I'm not exactly going to start crying and being depressed over what happened.
I have my reasons.
I didn't really notice it back in Insurgent, but Tris seems too impulsive in her actions. She and Tobias also argue too much. :/ Then again, I'm not an expert in the relationship department. It was just aggravating and annoying.
Allegiant certainly wasn't boring, which was another review spoiler. It was Veronica Roth's writing. It seems more... I don't know. There's just something about the writing that bothers me in Allegiant. And it's not because of Tobias' POV being added in, though it was interesting to break into his mind and take a peek behind the "stoniness".
By stoniness, I meant that he doesn't seem to give out a lot of what he's really thinking. I guess it's a nice change, being able to see/read what Tobias is thinking. SPOILER ALERT! Oh, and he likes to hurt people?! Disappointing in that part...
Okay, you now have the right to bash me and throw tomatoes at me. Just give me ten seconds to run away. :p
<blockquote>Yeah, sometimes life really sucks. But you know what I'm holding on for?
The moments that don't suck. The trick is to notice them when they come around.</blockquote>
---------------------
Formatting may be lost due to copy and paste. Pictures have been removed from this review.
This review and more on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/12/review-allegiant-by-veronica-roth.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; />
I've been spoiled of the ending. Yep. SPOILED. Then I confirmed it at Barnes & Noble by finding out what chapter it happens on... which I won't say at all.
That should have stopped me from even picking up the last copy from the school library, or even asking, because I simply don't want to get smacked in the face by what happens in the end and how it truly leads there.
But I decided that I should simply take a chance on the series, because after all, I liked the other books in the series. It would be a different case if I didn't like Divergent and Insurgent.
And maybe I'll have different thoughts despite the ending when I do finish reading.
<b><u>After Reading:</b></u>
Let me just mention this first and foremost: this will not be a very rave review, despite the rating. So Divergent fans, if you cannot handle not-so-very-rave reviews, please turn around and walk out. If you can, or if you're remotely curious, feel free to continue on.
But don't say I didn't warn you. Because I certainly did, and I won't be warning again. Oh, and there may be a few spoilers. They're in red....
I’m just going to "Cut to the Chase" right this minute, and possibly earn a few tomatoes thrown at me as a result in the end. I’m pretty sure I’m entitled to my honest opinion, so if I lied, I wouldn’t be honest after all.
I do not mean the music video by Trish Thuy Trang featuring Cardin.
My nose might grow longer as well. ;)
Allegiant was dangling on a fish hook right above the surface of DNF Lake many times while reading it. Near the end though, after a HUGE – and by "HUGE," I mean at least 80% of the way through – chunk have been read, I kind of spared it and brought it back to shore. Some people may have noticed me complaining a bit – and giving a few brief review spoilers! – on Twitter or Personal Facebook. And yes, I have a Facebook. Please don't stalk me. :p
One of the review spoilers? I don't particularly like Tris as a character anymore. POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT! Possibly making it worse – and basically only L knows about this – I don't feel really sorry about what happened to her. Well, I'm upset, but I'm not exactly going to start crying and being depressed over what happened.
I have my reasons.
I didn't really notice it back in Insurgent, but Tris seems too impulsive in her actions. She and Tobias also argue too much. :/ Then again, I'm not an expert in the relationship department. It was just aggravating and annoying.
Allegiant certainly wasn't boring, which was another review spoiler. It was Veronica Roth's writing. It seems more... I don't know. There's just something about the writing that bothers me in Allegiant. And it's not because of Tobias' POV being added in, though it was interesting to break into his mind and take a peek behind the "stoniness".
By stoniness, I meant that he doesn't seem to give out a lot of what he's really thinking. I guess it's a nice change, being able to see/read what Tobias is thinking. SPOILER ALERT! Oh, and he likes to hurt people?! Disappointing in that part...
Okay, you now have the right to bash me and throw tomatoes at me. Just give me ten seconds to run away. :p
<blockquote>Yeah, sometimes life really sucks. But you know what I'm holding on for?
The moments that don't suck. The trick is to notice them when they come around.</blockquote>
---------------------
Formatting may be lost due to copy and paste. Pictures have been removed from this review.
This review and more on <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/12/review-allegiant-by-veronica-roth.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; />
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
Thor has always been the red headed stepchild of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's there, but nobody really seems to care all that much. His presence in the Avengers films is always more in the background, and his solo movies have been mediocre at best. Nothing that warrants more than one viewing. Now, with a healthy dose of Flash Gordon flair, Thor finally gets a movie that elevates this particular branch of the MCU to good, popcorn fun.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.