Search
Search results
tapestry100 (306 KP) rated Meddling Kids: A Novel in Books
Jul 26, 2017
Ever wonder what happened to the Scooby Doo gang when they grew up? It wasn't exactly a question I ever thought I needed an answer to until Edgar Cantero decided he needed to give his unique twist on what that adulthood could have looked like. In his beautifully bizarre (bizarrely beautiful?) novel, Cantero introduces us to the Blyton Summer Detective Club, a group of 4 teenagers and their dog who spend their summer vacations solving mysteries in idyllic Blyton Hills. We're familiar with the team: there's Peter, the jock; Nate, the nerdy outsider; Andy, the tomboy; Kerri, the smart one; and Sean, the faithful Weimaraner. After their final case in the summer of 77, involving a masked fortune hunter trying to find the buried treasure of Deboën Mansion, the kids suddenly hang up their spy gear and retire from mystery solving.
Jump ahead thirteen years, and those same crime solving sleuths of young are now disillusioned 20-somethings trying to make their way thru life, not really understanding where their lives went wrong. Peter is dead (even tho Nate still talks to him), Nate is institutionalized (he talks to a dead guy, after all), Andy is a wanderer with a somewhat criminal past, and Kerri is a bartender in a seedy bar, who is also taking care of Tim, Sean's descendant. There was something about that last case, the one they all can't stop thinking about, that wasn't quite right, that is at the root of their problems. When Andy finally decides that enough is enough and they need to go back to Blyton Hills to face these demons and reopen that last case, the group gets together one last time to try to bring sense and closure to that final, haunting case.
Of course, it's not as easy as just a guy in a mask, and as they face down eco-villainous corporations, primordial monsters, ecological disasters, and something that defies description, they begin to come to terms with what has been haunting them over the years. This sounds wildly simplistic as I type it out, and I'm leaving it that way. It's not simplistic in the slightest, but the joy in this book is in the details and following along with the BSDC as they uncover one clue after the next, taking them on a whirlwind ride that makes you unable to put the book down until the very last page.
Much like his previous novel The Supernatural Enhancements (which I am a huge fan of as well), Cantero takes his time with the story, creating a slow build that eventually spirals into this wild adventure, making unexpected twists and turns in the narrative so you never really are sure that you know what's going on. His characters are exactly who they appear to be, rifs of the Scooby gang, but he doesn't make clichés of them. These characters are all their own and as individual as can be. Eagle-eyed readers will also notice fun callbacks to the Scooby cartoons.
So, if you're looking for something with a little mystery, a little horror, with some supernatural hijinx thrown in for fun, you can't go wrong with Meddling Kids. And if you like this, be sure to check out Cantero's The Supernatural Enhancements as well.
Jump ahead thirteen years, and those same crime solving sleuths of young are now disillusioned 20-somethings trying to make their way thru life, not really understanding where their lives went wrong. Peter is dead (even tho Nate still talks to him), Nate is institutionalized (he talks to a dead guy, after all), Andy is a wanderer with a somewhat criminal past, and Kerri is a bartender in a seedy bar, who is also taking care of Tim, Sean's descendant. There was something about that last case, the one they all can't stop thinking about, that wasn't quite right, that is at the root of their problems. When Andy finally decides that enough is enough and they need to go back to Blyton Hills to face these demons and reopen that last case, the group gets together one last time to try to bring sense and closure to that final, haunting case.
Of course, it's not as easy as just a guy in a mask, and as they face down eco-villainous corporations, primordial monsters, ecological disasters, and something that defies description, they begin to come to terms with what has been haunting them over the years. This sounds wildly simplistic as I type it out, and I'm leaving it that way. It's not simplistic in the slightest, but the joy in this book is in the details and following along with the BSDC as they uncover one clue after the next, taking them on a whirlwind ride that makes you unable to put the book down until the very last page.
Much like his previous novel The Supernatural Enhancements (which I am a huge fan of as well), Cantero takes his time with the story, creating a slow build that eventually spirals into this wild adventure, making unexpected twists and turns in the narrative so you never really are sure that you know what's going on. His characters are exactly who they appear to be, rifs of the Scooby gang, but he doesn't make clichés of them. These characters are all their own and as individual as can be. Eagle-eyed readers will also notice fun callbacks to the Scooby cartoons.
So, if you're looking for something with a little mystery, a little horror, with some supernatural hijinx thrown in for fun, you can't go wrong with Meddling Kids. And if you like this, be sure to check out Cantero's The Supernatural Enhancements as well.
Kelly (279 KP) rated Spartacus - Season 1 in TV
Dec 21, 2018
Gladiators (1 more)
Great fighting scenes
Much better than the 1960 film
Who would have thought that the story of Spartacus could have been made raunchy for a modern audience, but Starz did this really well. The general facts around the slave rebellion against the Romans, led by the former gladiator Spartacus are limited, however Starz used what information there was and filled in the rest to create a believable version of the tale.
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
I know that around the release of the series, there was a lot of talk about the use of CGI in the show, mainly during the battle scenes, with the appearance of animated blood splatters/slashes, similar to that shown in the film 300. This use seemed to have divided the audience into either ‘love it’ or ‘hate it’. Personally, I feel that this was the unique selling point of the show- something different that we are not used to on the TV screen, I felt it helped made the show more watchable.
For me Andy Whitfield made Spartacus (and his loss was noticed in the later series of the show). His love towards wife Sura is clear throughout series one, and gave us a believable reason as to why he allowed himself to be manipulated by Batiatus. He was also supported by a number of well cast actors including Manu Bennett (Crixus) and Peter Mensah (Oenomaus), by the end of the series, we find that we really care about these characters.
The reason that I have not rated the show higher, is the casting of John Hannah as Batiatus. John Hannah is a good actor, but I felt the role was not suited to him. To me, Batiatus needed to be a little crueler and more angry, at the end of the day, he was profit and power hungry, and willing to give the lives of men in order to pay the cost of his personal success. There were times, when I did not believe that this was what John Hannah was portrayed, and there was an awkwardness around some of his scenes (particularly those where there were a lot of swearing).
Overall, despite the odd flaw, I really enjoyed watching Spartacus (and have happily purchased the complete box set for re-watching in future) .
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
What would you do if you discovered you had superpowers in adolescence? How would you juggle being a fighter for justice and try to have a normal teenage experience? Spider-Man: Homecoming offers a more realistic look at how this would take place. Where the previous series of films never seemed to make that connection of balancing one’s youth and the varied problems that come during that period with what it means to be a superhero. The Tobey Maguire and the forgettable Andrew Garfield portrayals relied on a more comic book look and storylines to bring audiences to the theaters. This is not the case for the newest iteration. The film is not presumptuous or pretentious in its approach.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Supergirl (2016-) Vol. 1: The Killers of Krypton in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This was a solid book, really made me care about Supergirl as a character, something I have not felt since Peter David was writing it! Marc Andreyko has a genuine caring for the character, as she is written strongly, without pandering to the fanboys out there. And while I know Kara is not a real person, under Andreyko's hand, she felt very real!
The story follows up on the tail end of MAN OF STEEL (which, as I said in my review, exceeded my low expectations, helping to have faith anew in Brian Michael Bendis). She says goodbye to her cousin, Kal-El, as she heads to space to follow the trail of Rogol Zaar, and to determine if he was not lying when he claimed to have destroyed Krypton. Best of all, she won't be alone: Krypto will be along for the journey! And what a journey it is!
Some questions are answered, but new ones are generated, as a conspiracy within the Guardians of Oa! There's a lot more to it than just that, but I like my reviews, like my initial readings, to be Spoiler-Free! You'll have to read it for yourself, and I am certain that, like myself, you will not be disappointed!
And speaking of "not being disappointed", let me talk a bit about the equally enjoyable art. The majority of this volume was drawn by Kevin Maguire (who I adored here, as much as his work in the 80s on JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL), but he was also support the likes of Emanuela Lupacchino, Evan "Doc" Shaner, Lan, Medina and a bit of Karl Kesel, too! All involved were totally on their game, turning in art that remained consistent with Maguire's style, so as not to derail the story. Everyone deserves a big, hearty round of applause!
However, there was one thing in it that caused me to give it four Stars, not five. And, that, unfortunately, would be Dan Jurgens' Christmas-themed story. While the message was truly heartfelt and appreciated, the actual dialogue, as well as the story itself, was just not as good as I recall Jurgens being. And that's a damned shame, because some of my best Superman memories involve his stories from the 90s! Ah, memories!
And, that my friends, is a wrap! I hope you will check this one out, as it is the probably one of the best Supergirl stories in far too long! I truly hope DC treats Marc Andreyko right, because he is all aces!
The story follows up on the tail end of MAN OF STEEL (which, as I said in my review, exceeded my low expectations, helping to have faith anew in Brian Michael Bendis). She says goodbye to her cousin, Kal-El, as she heads to space to follow the trail of Rogol Zaar, and to determine if he was not lying when he claimed to have destroyed Krypton. Best of all, she won't be alone: Krypto will be along for the journey! And what a journey it is!
Some questions are answered, but new ones are generated, as a conspiracy within the Guardians of Oa! There's a lot more to it than just that, but I like my reviews, like my initial readings, to be Spoiler-Free! You'll have to read it for yourself, and I am certain that, like myself, you will not be disappointed!
And speaking of "not being disappointed", let me talk a bit about the equally enjoyable art. The majority of this volume was drawn by Kevin Maguire (who I adored here, as much as his work in the 80s on JUSTICE LEAGUE INTERNATIONAL), but he was also support the likes of Emanuela Lupacchino, Evan "Doc" Shaner, Lan, Medina and a bit of Karl Kesel, too! All involved were totally on their game, turning in art that remained consistent with Maguire's style, so as not to derail the story. Everyone deserves a big, hearty round of applause!
However, there was one thing in it that caused me to give it four Stars, not five. And, that, unfortunately, would be Dan Jurgens' Christmas-themed story. While the message was truly heartfelt and appreciated, the actual dialogue, as well as the story itself, was just not as good as I recall Jurgens being. And that's a damned shame, because some of my best Superman memories involve his stories from the 90s! Ah, memories!
And, that my friends, is a wrap! I hope you will check this one out, as it is the probably one of the best Supergirl stories in far too long! I truly hope DC treats Marc Andreyko right, because he is all aces!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Jan 15, 2019
Very Satisfying
When Miles Morales gets bit by a radioactive spider he assumes the role of Spider-Man. Except there’s more than one Spider-Man from separate dimensions crashing into one. The superheroes have to get to the bottom of what put them together and figure out how to right those wrongs for the sake of the universe.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
Easily one of the shining moments of this movie is learning about each spider character. Their differing personalities make the team-ups and dialogue scenes hilarious. Peter B. Parker shows us what kind of man a hero becomes when his life completely falls apart. He’s nonchalant and sloppy, but not because he doesn’t care anymore. Meanwhile, Spider-Ham was just perfect in every single way. I won’t spoil any of his moments like trailers have already done, but his featured scenes don’t disappoint in the least.
Villains are solid as well. Kingpin is a coldhearted badass who intimidates everyone in his path. As the story progresses, you understand what helped to make him who he becomes. This movie did an excellent job of fleshing out each character and giving them purpose.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Animated film or not, this movie is as good as it gets. Though not in my upper echelon of superhero films, it still ranks right up there with some of the best. Incredibles 2 gets the nod for best animated superhero film this year, but Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not too far behind.
Memorability: 9The animation style alone is enough to make this movie one that sticks around in your head long after you’ve watched it. The action sequences are long and satisfying, really popping off the screen. A positive message puts a nice little bow on top of everything.
Pace: 10
Entertaining from beginning to end, Into the Spider-Verse sets a swift pace and doesn’t slow down. Even scenes between the action have something important or funny happening that keeps the audience involved in the story. No slow-downs or lulls, the movie remains fresh deep into its runtime.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Ending was meh. Wasn’t bad, but it didn’t give me that Cherry On Top feel that I typically look for in an ending. It left me feeling a little…empty.
Overall: 88
When I first put Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse on my radar, I had no idea what to expect. I saw it as more of Sony trying to cash in on their one main Marvel character. After seeing it, I’m happy to report that I was dead wrong. I really enjoyed the movie and I can’t wait to check it out again at home in 4K!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
Easily one of the shining moments of this movie is learning about each spider character. Their differing personalities make the team-ups and dialogue scenes hilarious. Peter B. Parker shows us what kind of man a hero becomes when his life completely falls apart. He’s nonchalant and sloppy, but not because he doesn’t care anymore. Meanwhile, Spider-Ham was just perfect in every single way. I won’t spoil any of his moments like trailers have already done, but his featured scenes don’t disappoint in the least.
Villains are solid as well. Kingpin is a coldhearted badass who intimidates everyone in his path. As the story progresses, you understand what helped to make him who he becomes. This movie did an excellent job of fleshing out each character and giving them purpose.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 10
Genre: 8
Animated film or not, this movie is as good as it gets. Though not in my upper echelon of superhero films, it still ranks right up there with some of the best. Incredibles 2 gets the nod for best animated superhero film this year, but Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not too far behind.
Memorability: 9The animation style alone is enough to make this movie one that sticks around in your head long after you’ve watched it. The action sequences are long and satisfying, really popping off the screen. A positive message puts a nice little bow on top of everything.
Pace: 10
Entertaining from beginning to end, Into the Spider-Verse sets a swift pace and doesn’t slow down. Even scenes between the action have something important or funny happening that keeps the audience involved in the story. No slow-downs or lulls, the movie remains fresh deep into its runtime.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
Ending was meh. Wasn’t bad, but it didn’t give me that Cherry On Top feel that I typically look for in an ending. It left me feeling a little…empty.
Overall: 88
When I first put Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse on my radar, I had no idea what to expect. I saw it as more of Sony trying to cash in on their one main Marvel character. After seeing it, I’m happy to report that I was dead wrong. I really enjoyed the movie and I can’t wait to check it out again at home in 4K!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Seven Dollar Paycheck by Arms Akimbo in Music
Jun 17, 2019
Arms Akimbo is a four-piece indie-rock band. Not too long ago, they released a heartfelt alternative tune, entitled, “Pitchfork”.
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
“I feel like the song is a letter to my band and my loved ones back home. I wanted to tell the people in my life that even though it’s not the easiest path that we’re on, it’s the right path and we’re not going to give up. We don’t play music because we want to. We play music because we have to. And, as we say in the song, ‘if we’re patient then we’ll make it eventually’.”
‘Pitchfork’ tells an interesting tale of a young musician who is out on the road, on tour in west New Mexico, very far away from a special woman who has his heart.
Apparently, it was hard for him to goodbye to her, and shortly after his departure, he felt that he had let her down. Her emotional wellbeing made him question if she will still want him when he returns home.
While on tour, he thinks about her text message which states how he always let love slip away. Deep down, he wishes she’s wrong about that statement.
Later, things aren’t the same and a tad bit quiet when they talk on the phone. Also, the thoughts of losing her and not fulfilling his musical goals scares him. But he remains patient and hopes that everything works out in his favor.
“I wrote ‘Pitchfork’ on a non-stop drive back to LA from Austin, Texas, after SXSW 2018. Facing the existential dread that comes with finishing a tour, I couldn’t help but think about the way that being a musician connects you with so many people while simultaneously being extremely isolating. Music is our form of communication to reach people who might be feeling the same way that we are and we use that to build a community. But functioning as a musician means being on the road and being away from the people that you care about. This dichotomy can be tough to balance.”
Arms Akimbo’s consists of Peter Schrupp (vocals, guitar), Chris Kalil (guitar, vocals), Matthew Sutton (drums), and Colin Boppell (bass).
They labeled their single ‘Pitchfork’ in reference to the lyrics at the end of the song.
The likable tune encourages those in the music industry to never give up. Also, it narrates the existential dread which comes with finishing a tour.
“The song was written in two parts, with the first section functioning almost like a tour diary, a vignette of our life on the road. The second part is more of a personal plea to my loved ones to stick by me on this journey. It’s also my attempt to explain why I have to play music and why it’s so deeply instilled into who I am.”
‘Pitchfork’ contains a relatable storyline, warm vocal tones, and summery instrumentation flavored with melodic guitars.
The song is featured on Arms Akimbo’s latest EP, entitled, “Seven Dollar Paycheck”.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/arms-akimbo-pitchfork/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Deepwater Horizon (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing” could be a summary of this modern-age disaster movie. In 2010 the “Deepwater Horizon” drilling rig off the coast of Louisiana failed in spectacular fashion, bursting into flames and spewing millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico in what was the worst oil-spill in American history. Mark Wahlberg plays the well-respected electrical ‘Mr fixit’ Mike Williams on the rig, reporting to the Operations Manager Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell).
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
The exploratory project is way-behind and BP are not happy. Big-wigs from the company add support to Donald Vidrine, the BP site leader, in applying mounting pressure on Harrell to press on regardless without all the necessary and time-consuming tests by Schlumberger being completed. Rogue numbers in further tests are waved away as ‘glitches’. A familiar story of corporate greed and pressure overriding the expert’s better judgment.
When disaster strikes it strikes quickly, with some spectacular and exciting special effects that leave the audience especially hot under the collar. Female support is provided by the comely Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez), given the almost impossible job of keeping the floating bomb on station as chaos reigns about her. As an audience we are back on familiar ground here from classic Irwin Allen disaster movies such as “The Towering Inferno” and “The Poseidon Adventure”. Who will make it, and who won’t?
A more telling question here is “Do we care?” and unfortunately for the film, the answer is “Not really”. This feels a callous thing to say when this was a real and recent event and eleven people and – as touchingly illustrated at the end of the film in tribute – many of them family men with young kids, never went home again. But film-wise, we only really get bought into the fate of Williams, whose back-story, with cute wife (Kate Hudson) and cute daughter (Stella Allen) we get to meet and sympathize with.
We get a minimalist view of Fleytas’s backstory, but only enough to provide a recurring “Mustang” reference. And that’s it. All the other characters are just two-dimensional “rig crew”: cannon-fodder for the special effects team. The screenplay by Matthew Sand and Matthew Carnahan really doesn’t deliver enough heft to get us bought in.
While the special effects are good, the sound design isn’t, with much of the dialogue being incomprehensible.
All the acting is fine, with the ever-watchable John Malkovich nicely portraying the corporate head you love to hate. Wahlberg as well delivers enough range to make you forget in this “action mode” that he was also in “Ted”. And Rodriguez as a junior lead holds her own against the big guns in what is a creditable performance in a big film role for her.
While “Lone Survivor”/”Battleship” director Peter Berg neatly provides an insight into life on and around rigs, and (via subtitles) descriptions of the drilling process which I found interesting, this comes down to the sum of a tense build up, an hour of frenetic disaster, and then a whimper of an ending. Where were some of the dramatic scenes of conflict in the congressional hearing that the film’s opening implies might come? Where are the scenes of ecological disaster and local financial ruin to add emotional angles to the story? None of this is really exploited and the whole concoction comes across a bit “meh” as a result. Not a bad film by any means. But not one I will remember in a month or two’s time.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jan 23, 2020
In this day and age, where Star Wars is beloved by so many, and more recently met with sighs and trepidation by just as many, it's a franchise that easily faces scrutiny.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.
We can look at both the prequel and sequel trilogies to plainly see that it doesn't take much to piss off Star Wars fans in one way or another.
The announcement of Rogue One was met with said scrutiny, some saying it wasn't needed, some feeling fatigued by the sheer amount of Star Wars being thrown at us, sentiments that I can understand.
But I truly believe that Rogue One was a surprising win, and I left the cinema feeling that it belonged up there with the top tier SW films, and my opinion hasn't budged on repeat viewings.
The story revolves around a rag tag group of mercenaries, smugglers, and outcasts, and how they managed to secure the Death Star plans that set off the events of A New Hope back in 1977.
The cast of heroes aren't fleshed out a huge deal, but were given enough backstory to understand them adequately and back their campaign against the Empire.
Just like TFA, it's great to have another female lead in the SW universe. Felicity Jones is likable enough as Jyn Erso, even if her character is a little on the vanilla side.
The duo of Chirrut Imwe and Baze Malbus (Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang) work great next to one another, and provide a lot of the films humour and emotional impact.
The droid K2-SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk) is also a surprising highlight, his dry sense of humour works fantastically with the more serious tone of the movie.
We also have Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) which is the only character from the main group I struggled to like. He's written like a poor man's Han Solo, and I just didn't care about him at all, an aspect that can hopefully be rectified in the upcoming Disney+ series.
We also have Forest Whitaker as Saw Gerrera - a concrete connection to Star Wars: Rebels no less!, Mads Mikkelsen as Jyn's father Galen, and Ben Mendelsohn as this films villain, Orson Krennic.
It's a really strong cast if mostly enjoyable characters that earn their place in the SW pantheon.
In terms of cinematography, Star Wars has arguably never looked so good. Gorgeous and colourful locations like Scarif contrast against the classic Whit and greys of the original Empire design beautifully. All of the CG effects are more or less perfect, (with a huge exception that I'll get to in a second) and the action set pieces are thrilling. The whole final act is spectacular, and then just when it's seems like it's all over, we get THAT ending sequence - Gareth Edwards knows just the right amount of nostalgia to ensure the audience laps it up, and it's one of the best minutes of any Star Wars film ever.
The exception I mentioned above is of course going to be the subject of bringing back real actors from the dead. The inclusion of Grand Moff Tarkin makes sense in this particular narrative, but it does feel a bit odd seeing Peter Cushing, who died over 20 years ago, back on screen. Another cameo late on that includes a younger version of a legendary Star Wars character looks really off as well.
Overall though, these are just nit picks at an otherwise terrific sci-fi adventure.
Rogue One is bonafide great entry into the Star Wars canon, and its my personal favourite of the Disney era so far. Top stuff.