Search
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
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!
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in Books
May 16, 2018
Several years ago, I watched The Haunting (1999). It was not an intentional watching of the movie and I actually forgot that I had watched it shortly after. Now and then, I would recall a scene and try to remember where it was from without much luck. At that time, I was not aware that it was an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's novel, The Haunting of Hill House. In fact, it wasn't until more recently that I returned to my long forgotten passion for the written word. In a way, I'm a bit glad that I read the book - or in this case, listened to it.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
One of the largest determining factors for me when I'm listening to an audio book is the quality of the narration, and in this case I highly suggest the version narrated by David Warner over Bernadette Dunne. Warner's voice is far gentler on the ears and his heavy English lends an utterly unique feeling to the story. I only listened to a sample of Dunne's version and found it very painful on my ears. Warner's reading is published by Phoenix, whereas Dunne's is from Blackstone Audio. Considering that I use audiobooks in order to help me relax along the hour long commute to and from work, the quality of the recording is vital to whether or not I am capable of stomaching the book (and for this reason, I nearly dropped House).
The Haunting of Hill House was published in 1959 by Viking, six years before Shirley Jackson's death. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Jackson"; target="new">The book itself is lauded as a classic example of haunted house fiction, earning praise from my all time favorite author, Stephen King.</a> It is a story in which four individuals take up summer residence in the famed Hill House, where they embark upon an unexpectedly brief journey to learn more about the supernatural - and perhaps even about their own selves. Each character is riddled with their own flaws and, to my great surprise, are not filled with the incessantly needy yearning for romance that is so common in other books.
I can also admit that none of the characters are particularly likable. The character that I find most tolerable is Eleanor Vance, our star for this read who clearly suffers from mental illness. Given the time in which the book takes place, it is almost heartbreaking how little others are able to pick up regarding her mental state and, when they finally do, the disdain they treat her with is extremely painful to watch. My least favorite of the cast is Mrs. Montague and her planchette. Mrs. Montague seems rather incapable of caring about anyone other than herself and goes to great lengths to undermine her husband. Her short fuse makes her utterly unbearable and, were I to cross paths with her, I can't promise that I wouldn't want to throttle her.
As far as the haunting of the manse itself goes, there's very little to it. While Jackson's prose is meticulous and gorgeous to behold, at no point did I feel any sense of unease. Much of what is meant to be unsettling is not supernatural in origin, but derived from the interactions of the characters. In a way, the reader is simply a passenger along for the ride in Eleanor's descent into madness, and it is from this that unease can be felt than by anything ethereal.
I enjoyed The Haunting of Hill House and I find it to be a pleasant read (or in this case, listen), but it is not among my favorites when it comes to horror. I felt no real need to keep going and none of the edge-of-your-seat anxiety that horror fans like myself thrive on. It is certainly a beautiful book and Hill House has a hauntingly sad past, but other than that I did not find the story to be overly impressive. While some of this could be attributed to the fact that I had seen the movie in the past, I don't really feel that is the case - especially since I seem to be in agreement with several other readers.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Ryan Reynolds (2 more)
Hilarious Throughout
Energetic Score
Even Better Than A Chimichanga
Many thought that this movie would never get made, but I am very glad that it did. The movie serves as a long awaited origin story to Deadpool, that is fairly faithful to the comic book, at least more so than the previous iteration that we got of the character. Ryan Reynolds is fantastic in the Deadpool role, he truly was born to play the merc with a mouth in my opinion. Deadpool here is crass, funny, violent and energetic as well as being pretty faithful to comic book Deadpool, with the only thing missing from this version being the multiple voices in his head, but I am pretty sure that we will see that character trait develop in future Deadpool movies. The plot is pretty simple, we are introduced to Deadpool and shown how he got his powers after being diagnosed with incurable cancer via flashback. From there we basically follow him while he attempts to track down Ajax, or Francis, (the guy that turned him into Deadpool and made him deformed,) so that he can cure his skin and give him back his good looks. The one thing that was always going to either make or break this movie, was the humour. However they capture the meta humour perfectly here, which is an essential component of what makes up this character and is one of the main reasons why so many people love him. The movie is chock full of clever fourth wall breaks and pop culture references. The film was granted an R rating by the studio and the filmmakers take full advantage of that fact, with constant blood splatter and f-bombs being dropped left and right. The hip hop based score adds to the energetic tone of the movie and the action scenes are exciting throughout.
All of this results in setting up a Deadpool universe that is full of potential, we already know that we are getting a sequel, probably featuring Cable and possibly introducing the X force, plus I am very curious whether or not we will get to see Deadpool being integrated into the larger X Men universe, it would be really cool to see him interacting with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine, since he is the butt of several jokes in the Deadpool movie.
Overall, whether you are a fan of the Deadpool comic or not, as long as you are into crass humour, over the top cartoon violence and R rated superhero movies, then there is no reason why you won’t love this movie. It is also the best Fox superhero movie that we have had and it is the best R rated superhero movie ever produced.
All of this results in setting up a Deadpool universe that is full of potential, we already know that we are getting a sequel, probably featuring Cable and possibly introducing the X force, plus I am very curious whether or not we will get to see Deadpool being integrated into the larger X Men universe, it would be really cool to see him interacting with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine, since he is the butt of several jokes in the Deadpool movie.
Overall, whether you are a fan of the Deadpool comic or not, as long as you are into crass humour, over the top cartoon violence and R rated superhero movies, then there is no reason why you won’t love this movie. It is also the best Fox superhero movie that we have had and it is the best R rated superhero movie ever produced.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"if you are nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it."
A John Hughes-esque coming-of-age movie, disguised as a friendly neighborhood adventure from the MCU; Spider-Man: Homecoming is more about growing up, and less about saving the world.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Tom Holland is great as Spider-man. His Spidey is different, and in a way, refreshing. I like how the origin story is skipped, and instead, we dive head into the day-to-day adventures of a semi-awkward, fifteen-year-old. I'm more interested in the growth of Peter Parker, than the development of Holland's Spider-Man Spidey-Powers. I'm still undecided about the way Spidey looks in his costume. To me, he looks more like a CGI goofnut, than an Avenger. But, how many kids get to have Jennifer Connelly on standby, whenever they need a helpful voice?
Homecoming might not feel and act like your typical MCU movie, but it does prove we still need Tony Stark, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts in our lives. I smiled with all the screen time Happy has. He's truly an underrated character in the MCU. Plus, Tony plays the "cool uncle" spot-on.
One of the biggest criticisms with the MCU people have is the boring villain. Not in this case. Michael Keaton plays reverse-Batman, and his character actually has depth, an interesting storyline and a surprise twist. Bookem Woodbine plays a fun henchman, and all movies benefit from the presence of Donald Glover. The bad guys are not a snore nor a bore at this Homecoming Dance with the Devil.
I hope I wasn't the only one laughing at the casting of Tony Revolori as Flash the Bully. He's about as intimidating as a can of ravioli. Zendaya is way underused, but she shines in her scenes. I wish Ned was my best friend, but the poor fella will probably be typecast for life. However, he's a hilarious guy. How can you not like him?
Did you think I forgot about Aunt May? Of course not! Marisa Tomei is smokin' and brings honest energy to her supporting role.
The final boss battle is fun. So are the scenes on a ferry and a national monument. There's action, and there's a lot of growing up for Peter Parker and his friends. I'm not MCU fatigued after watching, but I do have a sudden urge to revisit Pretty in Pink.
Joelene Marie (28 KP) rated The Fifth Doll in Books
Oct 1, 2018
*3.5 stars, rounded up to 4*
I originally requested this after coming across it on Netgalley during a random browse thru the sci-fi/fantasy category. The description sounded interesting so I thought I'd give it a shot. It sat on my Kindle carousel for a good while (so many books, so little time…) so it was a few days after it was released before I actually got around to starting it. I had seen The Fifth Doll mentioned in several posts and compared to Naomi Novik's Uprooted and Catherynne Valente's Deathless, two books that I love dearly. I decided to go back and check the Goodreads reviews to get an idea of the accuracy of that comparison and from there decided to read the first chapter or two to see if it hooked me like those two had. I was about 40% thru before I realized that it absolutely did have that “unputdownable” quality like the others and had to force myself to put it down and go to bed lol. After finishing it, I can say with certainty that the comparisons do indeed fit.
I have a weak spot for anything 'fairytale-esque’ and this definitely falls into that category, as it is a retelling of the origin of Russian matryoshka dolls. The mc’s name, Matrona, is a nod to this as well. This story is very well written and so imaginative. It definitely kept me guessing until close to the end when the truth about Slava, the creator of the dolls, is revealed. I liked that the Japanese nesting doll is where Slava found the inspiration to create his dolls, it's a small detail but one that ties this retelling to the real history of the matryoshka dolls.
I thought Matrona was developed pretty well but others, especially Slava, could have used a little more fleshing out. I would have also liked a little more backstory on Pavel and Oleg and the symbolism of the white horse. The writing style was solid and the pacing was just right in my opinion. The romance was subtle and didn't overshadow the main plot, which was nice for a change. The main thing I wasn't really happy with was the magic system. There's very little explanation of any of it or how it really works, only that it does. As a fan of fantasy and fairytales, I appreciate a well developed magic system as part of solid world building and that was sorely lacking here for me. Overall, it was an enjoyable read but I feel there was potential for it to be more.
**Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC! All opinions are my own.**
I originally requested this after coming across it on Netgalley during a random browse thru the sci-fi/fantasy category. The description sounded interesting so I thought I'd give it a shot. It sat on my Kindle carousel for a good while (so many books, so little time…) so it was a few days after it was released before I actually got around to starting it. I had seen The Fifth Doll mentioned in several posts and compared to Naomi Novik's Uprooted and Catherynne Valente's Deathless, two books that I love dearly. I decided to go back and check the Goodreads reviews to get an idea of the accuracy of that comparison and from there decided to read the first chapter or two to see if it hooked me like those two had. I was about 40% thru before I realized that it absolutely did have that “unputdownable” quality like the others and had to force myself to put it down and go to bed lol. After finishing it, I can say with certainty that the comparisons do indeed fit.
I have a weak spot for anything 'fairytale-esque’ and this definitely falls into that category, as it is a retelling of the origin of Russian matryoshka dolls. The mc’s name, Matrona, is a nod to this as well. This story is very well written and so imaginative. It definitely kept me guessing until close to the end when the truth about Slava, the creator of the dolls, is revealed. I liked that the Japanese nesting doll is where Slava found the inspiration to create his dolls, it's a small detail but one that ties this retelling to the real history of the matryoshka dolls.
I thought Matrona was developed pretty well but others, especially Slava, could have used a little more fleshing out. I would have also liked a little more backstory on Pavel and Oleg and the symbolism of the white horse. The writing style was solid and the pacing was just right in my opinion. The romance was subtle and didn't overshadow the main plot, which was nice for a change. The main thing I wasn't really happy with was the magic system. There's very little explanation of any of it or how it really works, only that it does. As a fan of fantasy and fairytales, I appreciate a well developed magic system as part of solid world building and that was sorely lacking here for me. Overall, it was an enjoyable read but I feel there was potential for it to be more.
**Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for the ARC! All opinions are my own.**
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Before Ben Affleck, but after Adam West, Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney, Christian Bale was Batman for at least two of the best Batman films out there. With a screenplay by director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan and a story by David S. Goyer, Batman Begins is an origin story. Gotham City is dying since criminals like Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) are able to get away with murder since, “he keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared,” as Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) puts it. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) trains with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), the right hand of Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), and The League of Shadows.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
