Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019
"You know in the future if you're gonna steal cars, don't dress like a car thief man"
So Sony had two choices, either sell the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel or press the reboot button on the Spider-Man franchise, so we got this and I see a lot of mixed opinions about this film, some love it, some don't, I think it's a good film but it's not as good as Sam Raimi's 2002 classic Spider-Man.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated Fallen Angel in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Genre: Contemporary Adult
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.27
My Rating: 2.5
“What do you see when you look into my eyes?” I asked breathlessly and not entirely sure where the question had come from.
“All there is to know,” was his reply. “What do you see when you look into my eyes, Brooke?” he whispered, there was a slight anger to his voice.
I trembled. “An abyss and danger,” was all I could say.
I found Fallen Angel when I was looking for angel/mortal romance novels. Even though Fallen Angel was listed as a mafia romance and not not the supernatural romance I was looking for, I picked it up anyway. And at first it was great.
It immediately started out with a strong love story. Brooke is in the midst of an existential crisis after breaking up with her long-time boyfriend. When she visits her best friend Sam in New York, she ends up meeting billionaire Robert Stone, a handsome CEO who doesn’t know how to take no for an answer. To the point of being a jerk about it. But at least he’s self aware about that.
“I’m worried that I might hurt you. I have a knack of doing that when people get too close to me, a defense mechanism, I guess.”
No one pretends Robert is a great boyfriend, which I love. There are too many alpha billionaires out there that are disturbingly abusive while everyone pretends it’s a normal relationship. Not here. Robert’s actually one of the first to admit that he’s not a good boyfriend and he’s never had a real relationship. Which is great. I love flawed heroes. And when Robert does get better at communicating his feelings, it’s worth it.
“I love you, Brooke. You’ll never know just how much because there are no words.”
And Brooke is strong enough to handle him. She stands up to Robert when he disses Sam for being gay (which, by the way, I hated a lot. You can be a flawed badass without being a homophobe. Ugh. Major turn-off for me) and when he makes a big deal about her wearing a revealing dress.
“I wore it for you and not for anyone else. If people can see my body, so what? You’re the only one touching it,” I told him.
Brooke’s even a trained kick boxer. She’s incredibly strong and perfect to help Robert get over his past.
Then the story falls flat.
tired-and-bored-boy-sleep-014
After their second fight and make up, the story gets monotonous real fast. A lot of sex scenes– which, to be fair, were actually hot and well-written– and a lot of the mundane stuff. Brooke hanging out with Sam and Scott, Brooke working, Brooke attending one event or another with Robert. The story just dragged. And with the actual story dragging, the amount of comma splices and run-on sentences became more noticeable to me and book was practically unreadable. I had to make myself finish because I had already invested so much time into it.
It’s not like there wasn’t potential for more plot. There’s a jealous ex girlfriend out to steal Robert back and Brooke’s ex boyfriend can’t accept their break up. Brooke takes a troubled teen under her wing and isn’t this supposed to be a mafia romance?
And yet the majority of the middle of the book is sex, clothes, work days, and how great Brooke is for Robert. On top of that, Brooke loses a lot of the strength and independence I saw earlier in the book. In fact, she turned into a love sick teen.
Our souls, so entwined, were part of each other, true soul mates. Not even death would separate us.
marrypoppinsareyouill
To make matters worse, Robert’s criminal background isn’t revealed until three quarters of the way through the story! And since he got out of illegal activities years before he met Brooke, it’s really anticlimactic. Brooke makes a huge deal out of it and almost leaves him because of his past, which makes me dislike her even more. The criminal element actually seems more like an after thought to this so-called mafia romance. I’m really surprised it has such a high rating on Goodreads because I found it pretty disappointing. My rating is 2.5 stars because of the strong beginning, but I definitely won’t be reading any more of the Fallen Angel series.
Average Goodreads Rating: 4.27
My Rating: 2.5
“What do you see when you look into my eyes?” I asked breathlessly and not entirely sure where the question had come from.
“All there is to know,” was his reply. “What do you see when you look into my eyes, Brooke?” he whispered, there was a slight anger to his voice.
I trembled. “An abyss and danger,” was all I could say.
I found Fallen Angel when I was looking for angel/mortal romance novels. Even though Fallen Angel was listed as a mafia romance and not not the supernatural romance I was looking for, I picked it up anyway. And at first it was great.
It immediately started out with a strong love story. Brooke is in the midst of an existential crisis after breaking up with her long-time boyfriend. When she visits her best friend Sam in New York, she ends up meeting billionaire Robert Stone, a handsome CEO who doesn’t know how to take no for an answer. To the point of being a jerk about it. But at least he’s self aware about that.
“I’m worried that I might hurt you. I have a knack of doing that when people get too close to me, a defense mechanism, I guess.”
No one pretends Robert is a great boyfriend, which I love. There are too many alpha billionaires out there that are disturbingly abusive while everyone pretends it’s a normal relationship. Not here. Robert’s actually one of the first to admit that he’s not a good boyfriend and he’s never had a real relationship. Which is great. I love flawed heroes. And when Robert does get better at communicating his feelings, it’s worth it.
“I love you, Brooke. You’ll never know just how much because there are no words.”
And Brooke is strong enough to handle him. She stands up to Robert when he disses Sam for being gay (which, by the way, I hated a lot. You can be a flawed badass without being a homophobe. Ugh. Major turn-off for me) and when he makes a big deal about her wearing a revealing dress.
“I wore it for you and not for anyone else. If people can see my body, so what? You’re the only one touching it,” I told him.
Brooke’s even a trained kick boxer. She’s incredibly strong and perfect to help Robert get over his past.
Then the story falls flat.
tired-and-bored-boy-sleep-014
After their second fight and make up, the story gets monotonous real fast. A lot of sex scenes– which, to be fair, were actually hot and well-written– and a lot of the mundane stuff. Brooke hanging out with Sam and Scott, Brooke working, Brooke attending one event or another with Robert. The story just dragged. And with the actual story dragging, the amount of comma splices and run-on sentences became more noticeable to me and book was practically unreadable. I had to make myself finish because I had already invested so much time into it.
It’s not like there wasn’t potential for more plot. There’s a jealous ex girlfriend out to steal Robert back and Brooke’s ex boyfriend can’t accept their break up. Brooke takes a troubled teen under her wing and isn’t this supposed to be a mafia romance?
And yet the majority of the middle of the book is sex, clothes, work days, and how great Brooke is for Robert. On top of that, Brooke loses a lot of the strength and independence I saw earlier in the book. In fact, she turned into a love sick teen.
Our souls, so entwined, were part of each other, true soul mates. Not even death would separate us.
marrypoppinsareyouill
To make matters worse, Robert’s criminal background isn’t revealed until three quarters of the way through the story! And since he got out of illegal activities years before he met Brooke, it’s really anticlimactic. Brooke makes a huge deal out of it and almost leaves him because of his past, which makes me dislike her even more. The criminal element actually seems more like an after thought to this so-called mafia romance. I’m really surprised it has such a high rating on Goodreads because I found it pretty disappointing. My rating is 2.5 stars because of the strong beginning, but I definitely won’t be reading any more of the Fallen Angel series.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Return of the King (The Lord of the Rings, #3) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest and more detailed review over on Ramble Media here http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=20020
The final instalment of TolkienÕs thrilling epic doesnÕt disappoint. In a gripping, at times, but IÕll get to that later, ending with twists and turns, drama and intrigue, and simply a fitting conclusion to a well written tale. Again, as always, I will intend to keep this short, and IÕll start with the bad and end with the good, because overall, this book is very good!
So for the bad, I have to admit, I find Frodo and Sam utterly boring. I appreciate that they have the most important task of the Company, and they need to be alone whist they are completing it, but they need something to complete their part of the story. Now I can understand others may have differing views, and I can appreciate this, but I find them such a tiresome partnership. Sam redeemed himself greatly in his persistence and growth of ÔspiritÕ as he continued with his task, but thatÕs the final word IÕll say on it as, it is a very good book for the most part.
And onto the good! I read a lot of books with battles in them, and rarely have I ever experienced the emotion, fear, sadness and excitement that a battle brings in such balance and proportion. The first book of this book, and apologies if that sounds a bit Irish as my mum would say, is totally enthralling and, to coin a common phrase, unputdownable. It is almost as though you can actually feel the charisma of Aragorn and the other captains pouring through the pages and giving you as the reader the desire to continue reading through what you know is going to be some pretty difficult parts emotionally.
Another positive of this is that the camaraderie seen at the end of the battles is truly heart-warming to see. It is sad that more is not seen of Gimli and Legolas, however I can understand that the emphasis needed to be on the captains and those of higher rank. This was especially true as the slow unveiling of Aragorn progressed, and the ceremony was extremely well written and really did help the reader to see what it would have been like to have been amongst the people welcoming their long lost King to their city of stone.
I have to admit my brain was rather slow on the uptake of where this story was going, but I couldn't have imagined half of the goings on that did occur. These were however, intricately weaved into each other and give the book a sense of completeness as you discover the ending for all the characters, not just the odd one or two. Usually, as a fanfiction writer, I like the reader to leave me thinking at the end so I can fill some gaps myself, but on this occasion, having journeyed so far and put so much into the effort of reading the book, I have to say I enjoyed having the majority of things being tidied up for me. Tolkien really did tidy stuff up, the Hobbits, the Elves, the Men, and this gave a strange sense of fulfilment which I rarely get when I finish a book, and that was lovely to experience. Anyway, IÕm waffling, but you get the gist as I canÕt, for a change, express myself in words.
Another fact I loved about this book was the sudden twist in the fate of the Shire. This hit me like a bolt of the blue and really opened my eyes to situations such as this which had been a part of Ômodern day lifeÕ. I never thought the Shire could ever be taken by evil, despite all the warnings of Gandalf and the Rangers, I was still, hobbitlike I suppose, in my defiance that it could happen. Well, blow me over with a feather! When I read their homecoming I was crushed, truly crushed. This affected me more than any other part of the story, however the sadness was short lived as I had never expected the journey to change the little hobbits so much! Merry and Pippin really did live up to the new livery of their respective Lords, and showed a new side to the wonderful tenacity and resourcefulness of the hobbits.
The addition of the appendices is a wonderful touch, as I feel as fully versed in the lore of this world as my own. It is clear from this alone that to Tolkien, this was not just a story, it was a living world just out of our reach and he created a doorway to it, letting us experience their trials and tribulations, joys and victories and many other occurrences alongside our own. I find myself looking for evidence of this world now when I travel and it has truly grasped my imagination in a way few books ever do. The impact of this will be lasting, and I know I will always be looking for an ideal hobbit hole in the Shire to retire to!
In conclusion, I adored parts of this book, abhorred others, but the contrast makes me love it all the more as it is so relatable to modern events, despite being written many years ago before such events could ever have been contrived in the minds of men. It is a truly fitting conclusion to the build up in the other books, and provides thought, excitement, happiness, sadness and many other emotions to help bring the reader home to the Shire along a twisting road. Fantastically written, an excellent testament to the greatness of Tolkien and a book I would not only highly recommend, but nag people until they had at least given it a try. A truly wonderful and epic tale that will be read again and again.
The final instalment of TolkienÕs thrilling epic doesnÕt disappoint. In a gripping, at times, but IÕll get to that later, ending with twists and turns, drama and intrigue, and simply a fitting conclusion to a well written tale. Again, as always, I will intend to keep this short, and IÕll start with the bad and end with the good, because overall, this book is very good!
So for the bad, I have to admit, I find Frodo and Sam utterly boring. I appreciate that they have the most important task of the Company, and they need to be alone whist they are completing it, but they need something to complete their part of the story. Now I can understand others may have differing views, and I can appreciate this, but I find them such a tiresome partnership. Sam redeemed himself greatly in his persistence and growth of ÔspiritÕ as he continued with his task, but thatÕs the final word IÕll say on it as, it is a very good book for the most part.
And onto the good! I read a lot of books with battles in them, and rarely have I ever experienced the emotion, fear, sadness and excitement that a battle brings in such balance and proportion. The first book of this book, and apologies if that sounds a bit Irish as my mum would say, is totally enthralling and, to coin a common phrase, unputdownable. It is almost as though you can actually feel the charisma of Aragorn and the other captains pouring through the pages and giving you as the reader the desire to continue reading through what you know is going to be some pretty difficult parts emotionally.
Another positive of this is that the camaraderie seen at the end of the battles is truly heart-warming to see. It is sad that more is not seen of Gimli and Legolas, however I can understand that the emphasis needed to be on the captains and those of higher rank. This was especially true as the slow unveiling of Aragorn progressed, and the ceremony was extremely well written and really did help the reader to see what it would have been like to have been amongst the people welcoming their long lost King to their city of stone.
I have to admit my brain was rather slow on the uptake of where this story was going, but I couldn't have imagined half of the goings on that did occur. These were however, intricately weaved into each other and give the book a sense of completeness as you discover the ending for all the characters, not just the odd one or two. Usually, as a fanfiction writer, I like the reader to leave me thinking at the end so I can fill some gaps myself, but on this occasion, having journeyed so far and put so much into the effort of reading the book, I have to say I enjoyed having the majority of things being tidied up for me. Tolkien really did tidy stuff up, the Hobbits, the Elves, the Men, and this gave a strange sense of fulfilment which I rarely get when I finish a book, and that was lovely to experience. Anyway, IÕm waffling, but you get the gist as I canÕt, for a change, express myself in words.
Another fact I loved about this book was the sudden twist in the fate of the Shire. This hit me like a bolt of the blue and really opened my eyes to situations such as this which had been a part of Ômodern day lifeÕ. I never thought the Shire could ever be taken by evil, despite all the warnings of Gandalf and the Rangers, I was still, hobbitlike I suppose, in my defiance that it could happen. Well, blow me over with a feather! When I read their homecoming I was crushed, truly crushed. This affected me more than any other part of the story, however the sadness was short lived as I had never expected the journey to change the little hobbits so much! Merry and Pippin really did live up to the new livery of their respective Lords, and showed a new side to the wonderful tenacity and resourcefulness of the hobbits.
The addition of the appendices is a wonderful touch, as I feel as fully versed in the lore of this world as my own. It is clear from this alone that to Tolkien, this was not just a story, it was a living world just out of our reach and he created a doorway to it, letting us experience their trials and tribulations, joys and victories and many other occurrences alongside our own. I find myself looking for evidence of this world now when I travel and it has truly grasped my imagination in a way few books ever do. The impact of this will be lasting, and I know I will always be looking for an ideal hobbit hole in the Shire to retire to!
In conclusion, I adored parts of this book, abhorred others, but the contrast makes me love it all the more as it is so relatable to modern events, despite being written many years ago before such events could ever have been contrived in the minds of men. It is a truly fitting conclusion to the build up in the other books, and provides thought, excitement, happiness, sadness and many other emotions to help bring the reader home to the Shire along a twisting road. Fantastically written, an excellent testament to the greatness of Tolkien and a book I would not only highly recommend, but nag people until they had at least given it a try. A truly wonderful and epic tale that will be read again and again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Initially when a franchise reboots a series not five years from its last installment this can often be seen as a sign that they’ve run out of ideas. It was reportedly the inability to find a suitable script that drove director-producer Sam Raimi and the stars of the Spider-man series away from a possible fourth outing and forced Sony/Columbia start fresh.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
Selecting the relatively new Marc Webb who, outside of “500 Days of Summer”, had worked on music videos and most recently directed episode of The Office and the pilot for Lone Star, seemed like a very odd choice to turn over the billion-dollar franchise. The selection of American-born English actor Andrew Garfield also seemed to be an interesting choice to don the tights of the wall crawler.
Thankfully this is exactly the fresh start that the series needed. Even though I went into the film with guarded and reserved expectations I must say that I’m absolutely delighted with how the final product came out as this is a very fresh and faithful adaptation of the beloved comic book character that, in my opinion is the best adaptation to date on film.
The screenplay by James Vanderbilt was based on a story credited to three other writers all of whom clearly understand the character and the source material and are focused first and foremost with being respectful to it rather than putting their own unique stamp and take on the franchise.
The film does take a little bit of liberty by showing Peter Parker’s parents as they place young Peter in the custody of Ben and May Parker (Martin Sheen and Sally Fields) as they flee into a rainy night from implied danger, never to be seen again.
The film continues with teenage Peter (Andrew Garfield), plodding his way through high school. As brilliant as Peter is academically, he is extremely awkward around girls especially the lovely Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who never fails to catch his eye. When a clue from his father’s past arises, Peter finds himself at Oscorp where Gwen works as an intern. Peter also finds himself on the radar of his dad’s former partner Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), who becomes intrigued by young Peter’s scientific theories and even more so in his abilities when he learns that he is the offspring of his former partner.
Dr. Connors is working on cross species genetics and hopes that not only will it someday replaces missing arm, but will also pave a bold new direction for humanity. During a visit to the lab Peter, is bitten by a radioactive spider, and as any fan of the series knows, begins to exhibit amazing strength, agility, and perception, as well as the ability to walk on walls and cling to ceilings. In a very refreshing return to form, Peter fashions his famous web slingers rather than have them be organic as the previous film series did.
When a twist of fate puts Peter on the path of vengeance, he becomes a masked vigilante who uses his newfound abilities to rid New York some of its less pleasant citizens. These activities do not sit well with Captain Stacy (Denis Leary), who also happens to be Gwen’s father. As Peter and Gwen become closer, the duality of hiding his new identity from Capt. Stacy and Aunt May becomes even more imperative.
Naturally, it would not be much of a superhero film without a super villain, and Dr. Connors is more than willing to step up to this. Faced with pressure from his bosses he decides to use an experimental serum on himself. At first he is delighted as he seems to regrow his lost limb, but then in a Jekyll & Hyde-like transformation he transforms into a gigantic lizard creature bent on revenge and destruction as he attempts to complete a plan that will devastate millions of New York citizens.
Since Peter helped provide the equation that led to the formula that transform Dr. Connors, he feels obligated to stop the raging creature and to save his mentor no matter the cost. What follows are some truly spectacular action sequences including sewer battles in an extremely memorable finale across the Manhattan skyline.
While the film did take its time getting started as it established its back story and introduced the characters, once it got rolling it was an extremely fun and exhilarating ride. Garfield and Stone have a very good chemistry with one another and the reports of them recently dating off screen further solidifies their on-screen bond. Garfield wonderfully captures the conflicted emotions of Peter Parker as well as the brilliantly awkward genius that he is.
He runs the gamut of emotions from showing his anger and frustration to the dopey awkwardness of his interactions with Gwen and very believable manner. When he becomes infused with his new abilities you can almost share the glee that he has as he swings and flips around the landscape. The sheltered, socially awkward young man disappears when he dons the mask. He’s free to let himself go and Garfield does this with a childlike delight as well as the trademark quips and wisecracks that made the character such a beloved icon.
Garfield handles the physical duties of the role quite well and shines both in and out of the costume. I thought Tobey Maguire did a fantastic job bringing the character to life previously, but in my opinion Garfield has captured the essence of Peter Parker/ Spider-man and made it his own with a truly wonderful performance all around.
Stone does a great job as the love interest in the film as she is more than just eye candy and the typical damsel in distress far too common with this type of film. She challenges Peter and you can see some gleeful delight in her eyes when Peter awkwardly stumbles around her in an attempt to ask her out. Because she clearly enjoys the situation Gwen is not about to make it any easier on Peter, even though she’s been waiting for him to muster the courage for ages. She’s a strong and determined woman who gives a good range of emotions in her scenes and complements Garfield exceptionally well.
The supporting cast was very good especially Leary and Fields and Ifans does a good job as the quietly restrained Connors. In what could’ve easily been a scenery chewing, over-the-top Machiavellian bad guy, Ifans portrays Connors as a very sympathetic and understandable figure. He is a scientist first and foremost who is trying to do what he believes is right. He is not suited for the political machinations of a large corporation and when he begins this transformation and the animal side takes over there is still a hint of humanity amongst all the CGI work for the re-imagined Lizard.
While it did take me a while to get used to the look of The Lizard having become accustomed to his portrayal in comics and cartoons, I have to say it was a good updating it still stayed faithful to the essence of the original character.
Webb wisely decided to shoot in 3-D and not do a post filming conversion. It is the visually captivating and at times stunning cinema photography that really sets the tone for the film. You can truly get an idea of what it is like to be Spider-man as he swings and flips through the city and the point of view shots of his web firing out to latch onto objects and take down opponents are a lot of fun. Webb clearly knows the subject matter and gets the most out of his very talented cast and tells a very entertaining yet human action story and lets the effects support the film rather than carry it.
The film was much better than “Spider-man 3”. I am so happy that the franchise is in good hands and is moving forward in the right direction. Although the movie did take a while to get up to speed once it got rolling I did not want it to end, and I commented to my wife that I don’t want to have to wait 2 to 3 years for the next installment of the film I’m ready for more now. As a lifelong fan of comic I can honestly say I am beyond delighted with the new film, cast, director, and direction for the series.
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/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html