Search
Easter Basket Murder
Barbara Ross, Leslie Meier and Lee Hollis
8.0
Rate It
Book
Put on your springtime best and grab a basket, because Easter egg hunting is to dye for in this...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man in Apps
Sep 25, 2019
The Amazing Spider-man, starring Andrew Garfield, came out 10 years after Maguire's ill-fated first attempt, on 3rd July 2012. Co-starring some greats, including Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Martin Sheen and Sally Fields. You might as well read the last summary for this one too, but add in the fact that he's out to solve his parents' mysterious death.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Peter is less nerd, more loser this time around. And generally he comes across as a bit more sad than before. But you'd expect that as we started the movie with a sad farewell. He has a bit of a "moment" with his dad's old briefcase to push that fact home a bit more.
No field trip for this Peter, instead he gatecrashes an intern enrolment to get a nosy at what might have to do with his parent's past. We learn lessons from this film too... in this one it is super easy to break into what must be highly classified labs.
Peter's transformation happens a lot quicker in this one, much to the trauma of everyone in the subway carriage with him. His little morning rampage gives me visions of Wolverine destroying the sink in X-men Origins: Wolverine... and now I come to think of it, doesn't Cyclops have a meltdown with his powers in a bathroom? What can we learn about this? Superpowers make you hate bathroom fixtures.
Did anyone else notice the guy who runs Jurassic World? Is he trying to pick up tips on how to super charge those dinosaurs? And while we're talking about mystery appearances, I'm torn about Spidey helping The Reaper rescue his son.
Honestly, my favourite line has to be... "Yeah, nobody likes your meatloaf." Sheen and Fields reacting to each other is just priceless.
Uncle Ben dying in this one is a lot more dramatic and sets Peter off on a bit of a crusade that leads to some better green screened wall walking. And some handy falling through a roof into a wrestling arena, gives him an idea for his costume, and we see a montage of him honing his skills and tech... we're a little bit past shooting some white gunk out of our wrists at this point. I like that he points out everything is spandex, yes Parker, there should be other options.
After the big costume reveal I feel like the film drags a bit. It's good, and I enjoy it, but I feel like there's a lot of film for not a lot of plot... does that make sense? Possibly not, but I know what I mean, so it's all good.
Just goes to show you how much I was paying attention in the last one. I missed Stan Lee's cameo. This one was much better, listening to music in his library while it gets destroyed in a fight behind him. Stan Lee, I love you. Genuine hearts all around.
The crane moving scene is, well, a little bit moving. One good deed deserves another, and let's fly a flag in the background for added effect.
We started sad, we end sad. I definitely prefer this film to Spider-man. It isn't without its own flaws though. While Spider-man was just over two hours, it didn't feel like that's how long you were watching for. The Amazing Spider-man felt like 2 hours 16 minutes of screen time. But the ending... she's angry at him, and then he whispers to her, and she gives that little smile, and as she dips her head he knows she's going to forgive him. And we're left with a spark of joy.
Accounting for Business
Book
This textbook is a refreshingly clear introduction to the core accounting topics that non-specialist...
FarFaria Stories To Read Along
Education and Book
App
- “Brain Expander” –Parenting Magazine - “Netflix for Children's Books!” –USA Today -...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Charade (1963) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
The best Hitchcock film NOT Directed by Hitchcock
What do you get when you cross Cary Grant (NORTH BY NORTHWEST) with Audrey Hepburn (BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S) and a cavalcade of interesting faces like Walter Matthau (GOODBYE CHARLIE), James Coburn (THE GREAT ESCAPE), George Kennedy (IN HARM'S WAY) and Ned Glass (WEST SIDE STORY), put them in an exotic European location (this time, mostly, Paris) and have all of them chasing each other for a missing $250,000?
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
You have the best Alfred Hitchock film NOT Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.
Based on a story by Peter Stone, and Directed by Stanley Donen (SINGIN' IN THE RAIN), CHARADE is a throwback film, that shows the scramble for power and wealth in the beginnings of the cold war in Europe as a woman (Hepburn) searches for answers after her husband shows up deceased and she is instantly besieged by a bevy of mugs looking for some missing loot.
It's a fun and interesting whoddunnit and "whereisit"? With a central plot/love story hinging on the relationship between the Grant and Hepburn characters. And...this is where Charade succeeds greatly as the chemistry between the two is strong, thanks to the smart, forward-thinking idea of having Hepburn as on top of her game as Grant is of his. She is no "damsel in distress", but rather a worthy sparring partner for Grants (and the other mugs).
Of course, it doesn't hurt that Hepburn is dressed - impeccably - by Edith Head in stunning Givenchy outfits all set to the music of Henry Mancini.
Speaking of mugs, they don't get more character-y to look at than Matthau, Coburn, Kennedy and Glass and they all are terrific in their roles as shadowy, sinister figures who are after something that they think Hepburn has...but she just might not have it.
Beautifully shot by Donen in Paris of the early 1960's, this film captures a bygone era and a real feeling of a romanticized and glamorous Europe. This is interesting characters doing interesting things in an interesting way in an interesting place.
And...I'm glad all of this is interesting, for if you stopped for a moment to think about the plot - or the rather languid pace of this film - then Charade would lose quite a bit of it's luster and appeal.
But, fortunately for me, I didn't do that. I sat and immersed myself in these characters, settings and circumstances and was rewarded with a very entertaining evening brought to the screen by master players who know what they are doing.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 12, 2019
To Infinity....and Beyond!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Perhaps it's the eternal child in me, the three year old boy who developed a passion for superheroes after first seeing the 1966 Batman movie in the cinema (re-run of course, this was the 70's!), but this is without doubt the best film I have ever seen! Running at around 2 hours and 20 minutes in length (that's prior to the end credits mind you!) this movie brings together plot strands and characters from the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 10 year tapestry in what I will only describe as an epic thrill-ride.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
I'm sure if you're reading this you know the plot. Thanos - the granite jawed world killer from the planet Titan, is rounding up the 6 all powerful infinity stones with which he plans to restore the balance of the universe through essentially wiping out 50% of everything. All that stands in his way are The Avengers, the Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Spiderman, Black Panther, and probably a few I've forgotten to mention! And that's pretty much the story.
We pick things up directly from the mid credits scene of Thor: Ragnarok where the refugee Asgardians, Bruce Banner, and Loki encountered a spaceship of epic proportions. We all knew it at the time... Thanos! Within the first five minutes or so we already have our first casualties at the hands of the purple behemoth which sets the tone for what follows. In possession of two of the stones Thanos dispatches his 'children' - the Black Order, to Earth to retrieve the Mind and Time stones whilst he tracks down the remaining ones. At quite a quick pace our heroes are introduced into the chaos and by employing this structure the writers ably break down the ensemble into smaller manageable groups. Stark, Peter Parker, and Doctor Strange are hurled into the vastness of Space where they encounter Peter Quill and some of his merry misfits, Thor and some of the other Guardians go off in search off forging a weapon to defeat Thanos, and Rogers, Romanoff, Wilson, Rhodes and Maximoff take Vision to Wakanda in order to try and separate the Mind Stone from him with the aid of T'Challa, Shuri and Okaye. Gamora finds herself the prisoner of her adoptive father - a storyline that gives both Brolin and Saldana a chance to really show their worth. Those are effectively the four story strands at play and each is a joy in its own right.
Each character stays true to form with Hemsworth taking the character along he rediscovered in 'Ragnarok' - albeit with some added darkness from the movie's opening moments. Chris Pratt is sheer joy as Quill/Starlord and his interplay with Stark and Hemsworth is a joy to behold. Tom Holland gets one of the best lines when responding to a question from Quill regarding a certain Kevin Bacon movie! Top marks also go to the man who launched this universe a decade ago as Iron Man - yes, Robert Downey Jr knocks it out of the park as a Tony Stark far removed from that we encountered back in the first movie of the MCU. His performance at the climax is simply first rate.
With such a large cast there are characters who don't get as much to do as others although everyone get's a 'moment or two' amongst proceedings. Those that particularly stand out, however, are Robert Downey Jr's Iron Man (reiterating my earlier comments), Chris Hemsworth as Thor (likewise), Zoe Saldana as Gamora (ditto), Chris Pratt as Starlord/Peter Quill (and again), Paul Bettany as Vision and Elisabeth Olsen as Wanda/Scarlet Witch. Surprisingly, Chris Evans doesn't seem to get much to do other than play an active role in a number of excellent battle sequences, although his introduction into the movie along with Black Widow and Falcon as they turn up in Scotland to save the day for Vision and Wanda Maximoff from the Black Order was a personal fist thumping the air moment!
There's simply so much to talk about and I'll stop myself there. If, like myself, you just can't avoid spoilers then chances are you know what happens in this movie by now...including that ending!!
Thanos is the perfect villain, fantastically realised, and given real motivation for his actions - the guy thinks he's showing mercy to the universe! I wouldn't agree that this is his movie as the film-makers have repeatedly stated however he is the central cog that keeps things turning.~Josh Brolin does an exceptional job in bringing Thanos to life. Given the feedback and reaction to Steppenwolf in the DCEU there could have been obvious concerns around another CGI villain. Fear not, the technology is exceptional and Brolin's features are evident 100% making Thanos a living creation.
Alan Silvestri's score is the perfect fit and really compliments the action unfolding on the screen. During the aforementioned fist in the air moment as Steve Rogers, Black Widow, and Falcon make their first appearance to take on the Black Order, Silvestri's 'Avengers' theme kicks in creating pure movie magic.
Simply put, this movie is pure perfection.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A film that never needed to exist
Marc Webb’s first attempt at being behind the lens of a Marvel film was 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. Just five years after Sam Raimi concluded his trilogy with Tobey Maguire in the tight fitting suit, Andrew Garfield donned the iconic costume in a film that was good if a little unnecessary. Here, Webb returns just two years later with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but can it prove its worth?
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Star Light, Star Bright in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Review added: May 16, 2013
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
First off, things I liked about the book: (1) the title, it's a nice touch of whimsy, (2) the cover colors, and (3) the little shooting star above the chapter numbers (hey, it's cute!). I'm sorry to say that's about it.
This book was just a disaster; there was an excessive amount crammed into 360 pages, and all of it was predictable, over-the-top, and unbelievable. All the characters are supposed to be flawed but they were one-dimensional and boring. Lily and Peter were an exception; I think they had possibilities, most likely better suited to a completely different book. Brooke was an absolutely horrible character; she's boring, whiney, and did many things that I don't think her character would do (such as leave her horses without a by-your-leave), not to mention when her mother tells Brooke about her father and she's not affected by it in the least. What?! Then she spends the whole rest of the book a whole mess of a person who really needs to be sent to a psychiatric clinic, it's just too bad no one else sees this. Ugh, why would anyone like this person, let alone love her?
I don't think the author knew quite what to do with the book. First, the prologue, I'm sorry but it really didn't make sense to the rest of the book, not that the rest made much sense either. Secondly, the author was always changing direction; from the back of the book, I thought it was a love triangle, not exactly. Ms. Stone shifted to and from that but never really settled on a solution to have the triangle. Next, the conversations were a joke; everybody just opens up to a stranger and tells them a whole story? Every conversation was so melodramatic too.
Now for the relationships... No love triangle, that's why I read the book, I thought it sounded interesting. Rafe and Brooke: he's 26, she's 17 when they meet, they spend 9 days together...they're in love? Ha! Not to mention it's very creepy. I can pretend that Brooke is a mature 17 but I don't think a relationship for 9 days would reckon they love each other, they don't even know each other well. I'm sorry but 9 years in between, especially when the younger is 17 is huge; it's not like when someone is 30 and the other is 39, it's a big difference. I also find it hard to believe that 12 years later, everyone is the same and feels the same, no one has really changed. Then from here, the rest of the book is played out in a week, and the last bit totals a month. Way too much for the time period.
I know I had many, many more problems with this story but I think I'll stop here because I gave the main ones. If I continued on I might give spoilers and I don't want to do that in case someone actually wants to read this book. I don't know if this story was supposed to be like a fable, but if it was, it was a dismal failure.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017) in Movies
May 10, 2019
"He may have been your father boy but he wasn't your daddy"
The follow-up chapter to Guardians of the Galaxy and fifteenth instalment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is bigger in both scale & scope and continues the journey of this oddball gang of extra-terrestrial misfits while also bringing more figures from their past into the spotlight and although its vibrant use of colour palette & another tightly curated soundtrack are notable highlights, the film as a whole lacks the freshness of the original.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.
The story of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 finds Peter Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket & Baby Groot embracing their new roles of the Guardians as they are hired by a galactic race to save a valuable item from an inter-dimensional beast, a mission they successfully accomplish, but when Rocket steals some of the very items they just fought to protect, they're attacked by a fleet of drones and crash-land on a planet where they meet a mysterious figure who may have answers to Quill's true origin.
Written & directed by James Gunn, the film opens with a flashback but it is the main title sequence where it gets into the groove and wholeheartedly evokes the pleasant delights of the original. And while there are more flashes of it down the line, Gunn's writing & direction falls short of achieving the same feat twice, for not all attempts at humour hit the right spot this time and one can easily tell that the director is trying a tad too hard to match the consistent vibe & free-flowing wit of its predecessor.
The set pieces are more extravagant than last time and they are beautifully designed & gorgeously rendered on the screen. Cinematography makes vivid use of all existing colours and the resulting frames flourish with radiant hues from start to finish. Pacing isn't a big issue but Editing does lack the smoothness of its predecessor. Every moment in the movie relies heavily on visual effects and the VFX team leaves no stone unturned to make sure there is nothing to complain about, whether it's the celestial bodies or CGI characters or any set piece.
Coming to the performances, Guardians of the Galaxies Vol. 2 features Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Michael Rooker & Karen Gillan in their reprising roles while new additions include Kurt Russell & Pom Klementieff. But of all the big names, it's Rooker who impresses the most and his character of Yondu easily stands out as a show-stealer. One of the best things about the first film was its eclectic soundtrack and this sequel delivers in that field yet again with another awesome mix that seamlessly blends into the narrative.
On an overall scale, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 may not be a better film than its predecessor but it is still a worthy sequel that offers its own set of thrills & amusement, and happens to be just as much fun & entertaining an experience, if not more. It certainly earns its spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and its colourful images, dazzling visuals & first-rate soundtrack, in addition to its witty plot, idiosyncratic characters & wonderful performances, puts it right up there with Marvel Studios' better sequels. Enjoyable, entertaining & a whole lot of fun, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is definitely a solid summer blockbuster extravaganza.