Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Loose Change (2009) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
The fact that it was originally made conceived by a few students who did all of their research themselves and took the initiative to spread the word about what they learned is admirable and impressive. (1 more)
The soundtrack by DJ Skooly is full of bangers which really helps to boost the motivation of the film.
The Greatest Trickest That The Devil Ever Pulled, Was Convincing The World That He Didn't Exist
This is a fairly odd one to review. There are several different iterations of this film, of which I have seen 3 out of a total 6. This review will be based on the 3 versions that I have seen; Loose Change: Final Cut (2007), Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (2009) and Loose Change 2nd Edition: HD (2017).
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
There is also the debate whether to review the films based on how smooth and professional looking the films are presentation-wise, or whether to give merit purely on how important and essential the information is that is being shared through these documentaries.
Then there is the fact that most folk who don't believe that the, '9/11 was an inside job,' conspiracy holds any water, will probably dismiss these films right from the offset. Whereas most, '9/11 truthers,' will probably defend this film's technical shortcomings because it supports their own previous beliefs.
In my opinion, the best way to look at this film is as an introduction to the concept that the public weren't given the full truth in the fallout of 9/11 and go from there. Do your own research and try to separate the facts from the conjecture before making a decision for yourself and forming your own opinion.
My personal stance on 9/11 is somewhere in-between the two extremes of either camp. I think that the theories of the buildings being vaporized by energy weapons, or the idea of there not being any actual planes flown into the buildings that day is ridiculous and I feel that outlandish theories like that actually detract and are harmful to those trying to instigate another investigation into what went on that day. However, I do think that it is pretty irrefutable that the US Government did lie to their people and covered up a good amount of what went on around the event and there are so many huge discrepancies and inconsistencies in the official commission report that even the most sceptical patriots can't say that the Government have disclosed the entire truth.
If you are someone that isn't too well-versed on why there are so many people out there that don't believe the official story of 9/11, then this is a good place to start. As with all documentaries, don't take the filmmakers entirely at their word and do your own research to make up your own mind, but this is an impressive film. I have a great admiration for the guerrilla attitude of the filmmakers and the get-up-and-go mentality present in the filmmaking is great. Unfortunately, it does lack a level of polish that we are used to seeing in many modern day documentaries produced by streaming giants like Netflix. However, this doesn't tarnish the information that is being presented by the filmmakers and isn't a reason to ignore anything that is being said here.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated Can't Help Falling in Books
Jan 2, 2019
There are a few books that I have read this year that are beyond outstanding. Can't Help Falling is one such book. I can not emphasize enough how unique and brilliant Kara Isaac's books are. I was thrilled to see some of my favorite (and not so favorite) characters from Close to You make a reappearance. I adore the people in Kara's books! So much so, that I am utterly convinced they are real. Don't bother trying to change my mind because it won't work. I also really want a Narnia themed party for Christmas now.
I like to think that Peter sounds a little bit like Benedict Cumberbatch...that voice! Peter is such a big teddy bear, but I would want him on my side in a fight. Despite his doubts, he is such a wonderful man. Someone who is fiercely loyal, a true man of faith, and kind. He is human though and has his shortcomings, just like the rest of us. I adore Emelia, between her personality, meticulous party planning abilities, and Narnia obsession I just want to track her down and be her best friend. The web of connections and past events kept me on my toes and guessing up until the final chapters. This book is also the cause of a few very late nights reading. I was so completely immersed into the story. Even now I find myself grinning at the beautiful flow of the story and romance.
Don't let the cute antics and adorable features of our characters fool you, they still have quite the journey of healing, forgiveness, and second chances. Emelia and Peter are both dragging around loads of guilt and fear of the past. While they continue to struggle for atonement. However, no matter how hard they strive, they cannot find freedom on their own. Despite their best efforts, Emelia and Peter can not find peace. She can not forgive herself, she can not let go of her past mistakes, and neither can he. Instead, Emelia works to make up for what she has done, hides in wardrobes looking for Narnia and tries to shield her heart from the Heavenly Father whom she cannot see as loving. Will she be able to finally find peace? Or will she continue to run? Something that really stood out to me in this book was the message of second chances. Not only for others, but for ourselves. When we do not see ourselves as God sees us, when we see ourselves as broken and soiled, we don't think we deserve a second chance. But He can make us whole and pure. Forgiven and radiant. Will we allow ourselves the freedom of forgiveness and a second chance? And will you choose to be a Susan...or a Lucy?
Picking my top favorite books for the year will be challenging, but both of Kara's books are definitely among my absolute favorites! While these books can stand alone, I recommend reading Close to You first. Otherwise, there will be some confusion with the secondary storyline. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a wardrobe to find.
I received a free copy of Can't Help Falling through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
I like to think that Peter sounds a little bit like Benedict Cumberbatch...that voice! Peter is such a big teddy bear, but I would want him on my side in a fight. Despite his doubts, he is such a wonderful man. Someone who is fiercely loyal, a true man of faith, and kind. He is human though and has his shortcomings, just like the rest of us. I adore Emelia, between her personality, meticulous party planning abilities, and Narnia obsession I just want to track her down and be her best friend. The web of connections and past events kept me on my toes and guessing up until the final chapters. This book is also the cause of a few very late nights reading. I was so completely immersed into the story. Even now I find myself grinning at the beautiful flow of the story and romance.
Don't let the cute antics and adorable features of our characters fool you, they still have quite the journey of healing, forgiveness, and second chances. Emelia and Peter are both dragging around loads of guilt and fear of the past. While they continue to struggle for atonement. However, no matter how hard they strive, they cannot find freedom on their own. Despite their best efforts, Emelia and Peter can not find peace. She can not forgive herself, she can not let go of her past mistakes, and neither can he. Instead, Emelia works to make up for what she has done, hides in wardrobes looking for Narnia and tries to shield her heart from the Heavenly Father whom she cannot see as loving. Will she be able to finally find peace? Or will she continue to run? Something that really stood out to me in this book was the message of second chances. Not only for others, but for ourselves. When we do not see ourselves as God sees us, when we see ourselves as broken and soiled, we don't think we deserve a second chance. But He can make us whole and pure. Forgiven and radiant. Will we allow ourselves the freedom of forgiveness and a second chance? And will you choose to be a Susan...or a Lucy?
Picking my top favorite books for the year will be challenging, but both of Kara's books are definitely among my absolute favorites! While these books can stand alone, I recommend reading Close to You first. Otherwise, there will be some confusion with the secondary storyline. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a wardrobe to find.
I received a free copy of Can't Help Falling through NetGalley in exchange for my honest review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the “estate manager” to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Franco’s character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated No Man's Sky in Video Games
Jul 25, 2017
Hyped Up Nonsense
Earlier this month No Man’s Sky was released, a game that had been hyped and anticipated by so many. Unfortunately, it has failed to live up to the expectations that gamers had for it, however in the eyes of many this isn’t due to the faults or shortcomings of the actual game itself, but is rather due to the way that Sony marketed the game, (this game is technically an indie title, yet Sony treated it as a 1st party exclusive,) and the gaming media blowing expectations insanely out of proportion. Personally, I have only played the game for a couple of hours, but I feel that I have already seen everything there is to see, in that I know that if I play for longer all I will come across is the same things with different skins and textures and that is okay, if that is all that you are looking for. The reason that I stole the phrase, “a mile wide and an inch deep,” from Colin Moriarty and used it as the headline to this article, is because I feel that it is the most accurate description that I have heard of this game to date. However, if the game was marketed as an exploratory crafting game with very light story elements and no real characters, it would have been received a lot better. The point of this paper isn’t to insult No Man’s Sky, I am simply using it as an example as that game is currently at the forefront of the gaming zeitgeist. I don’t think that the gaming community’s disappointment in No Man’s Sky is down to the developers of the game, I believe that it was Sony’s treatment, as well as the gaming press’ treatment of the game that caused the hype train to come to a crash.
This isn’t the first time that this has happened, it happened last year with The Phantom Pain, that game took over three years to come out after it was officially announced and it was still an unfinished mess. The example that always comes up when discussing games stuck in development hell for years is Duke Nukem Forever, which was objectively a bad game, but even if it was more competent, in the leagues of Halo or COD, it would still be considered a failure. Final Fantasy 15 and The Last Guardian are also going to suffer for these reasons, too much time has been spent, reporting development news and hyping up the release that feels like it will never arrive and both of those games could be stellar masterpieces and they still wouldn’t reach anywhere near the payoff that is expected of them due to all of this overhyping and false hope that has been created by the gaming press. Lastly, even if Half Life 3 ever does release and against all odds does meet the standard of the previous games in the series, that still won’t be enough for die hard fans, due to the vast amount of time between now and the previous entry and the unrealistically high standards that this has caused gamers to expect.
I am fed up of this occurring, but the press isn’t going to stop reporting any news on these projects as its released, that’s their job. The only way that I can see to get around this issue is for developers to use the Fallout 4 method and release their game with 6 months of announcing it, quelling the inevitable explosion of hype that is created if the game takes any longer than that to release. The old saying goes that, ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity,’ but if the developer has any integrity and tact and isn’t just making something for the sake of a cash grab, perhaps they would do well to think of the No Man’s Sky release saga as a cautionary tale.
This isn’t the first time that this has happened, it happened last year with The Phantom Pain, that game took over three years to come out after it was officially announced and it was still an unfinished mess. The example that always comes up when discussing games stuck in development hell for years is Duke Nukem Forever, which was objectively a bad game, but even if it was more competent, in the leagues of Halo or COD, it would still be considered a failure. Final Fantasy 15 and The Last Guardian are also going to suffer for these reasons, too much time has been spent, reporting development news and hyping up the release that feels like it will never arrive and both of those games could be stellar masterpieces and they still wouldn’t reach anywhere near the payoff that is expected of them due to all of this overhyping and false hope that has been created by the gaming press. Lastly, even if Half Life 3 ever does release and against all odds does meet the standard of the previous games in the series, that still won’t be enough for die hard fans, due to the vast amount of time between now and the previous entry and the unrealistically high standards that this has caused gamers to expect.
I am fed up of this occurring, but the press isn’t going to stop reporting any news on these projects as its released, that’s their job. The only way that I can see to get around this issue is for developers to use the Fallout 4 method and release their game with 6 months of announcing it, quelling the inevitable explosion of hype that is created if the game takes any longer than that to release. The old saying goes that, ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity,’ but if the developer has any integrity and tact and isn’t just making something for the sake of a cash grab, perhaps they would do well to think of the No Man’s Sky release saga as a cautionary tale.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) in Movies
Feb 8, 2019
Good Fun
The Teen Titans go on yet another crazy adventure when Robin decides it’s time for them to up their popularity by making a movie.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
Acting: 10
This crew has been around for years and knows their way around voice acting. Voices match respective characters perfectly. Raven sounds just like a moody spellcaster while Starfire is bright and bubbly. Meanwhile, Beast Boy tries to be cool, but comes off as the biggest nerd in the group. When you read the comics and see how the characters act and interact, you can envision their voices sounding just like this.
Beginning: 10
You get action. You get funny. You get exactly what you get from the show on an even more extreme level. These superheroes crack me up and act just like you think teenagers would if given these powers. The first ten minutes shows them kicking butt and cracking you up while doing it.
Characters: 10
The movie succeeds off more than just the appeal of the Titans, although it certainly helps to see funny familiar faces like Cyborg doing his usual Cyborg thing. There are a number of other characters here that fill the time and keep you entertained. Between the Justice League, given exaggerated personalities, and a couple of cameos I won’t dare ruin, I was happy to see, not only the depth of character choices, but each character contributing to the fun of the story.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
It’s always a treat watching superhero teamups and this movie takes full advantage of that. The Teen Titans works so well together because all of their powers are unique so it’s cool to visually see them interact during action sequences. The movie also takes advantage of moving around to different locations so you’re taken on quite a journey by the end of it.
Conflict: 9
Action succeeds by not being overdone and contributing to the funny. The Titans kick butt, but they’re an extremely goofy bunch so I take even more pleasure in watching them fight. The movie has a pretty short run-time but directors Aaron Horvath and Peter Rida Michail make sure that time is maximized with quality action sequences.
Genre: 6
I’ve had a lot of good things to say so far, but the movie isn’t without its flaws. Those shortcomings keep it from extending into the classic realm of superhero films. Even animated superhero movies is starting to become a crowded genre and the challenge to find a place among the greats is getting tougher. Teen Titans Go! to the Movies holds its own…but I wouldn’t call it a classic.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 8
The funny gags within the movie not only take the show to new levels, it also helps to move the pace along quite nicely. Titans is not just kid-funny, but its subtle references make it funny on an adult level as well. Only adults that know DC movie history will pick up on some of the classic cameos within the story. One minute the crew is locked in a heated battle, the next you’re hearing hilarious jabs at Marvel. It’s meant to be fun and it succeeds greatly in that aspect.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Overall: 85
The plot was probably the weakest point of Teen Titans Go! to the Movies and kept the movie from jumping to A-status. The show is typically much ado about nothing and it’s hard to translate that to the big screen. While the story lacked in some spots and the overall plot was meh, the movie itself is still really enjoyable. Don’t expect to have your mind blown, but expect to have a really good time.
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
Thor has always been the red headed stepchild of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He's there, but nobody really seems to care all that much. His presence in the Avengers films is always more in the background, and his solo movies have been mediocre at best. Nothing that warrants more than one viewing. Now, with a healthy dose of Flash Gordon flair, Thor finally gets a movie that elevates this particular branch of the MCU to good, popcorn fun.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Visually, the movie is splendid. Bright colors and sweeping visuals create great backgrounds and settings. The hand to hand fights are impactful, and a aerial chase scene is exciting, and well shot. The music smacks of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies, giving it a very retro feel. And the director is obviously a big fan of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song". It's used in 2 fight scenes, which seems redundant, as Kiss' "God Of Thunder", or AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" would've been welcome additions.
But the film suffers from the same shortcomings as most other Marvel movies. First, the over reliance on humor continues to be crutch for the entire MCU. Way too often, the plot stops dead in it's track to tell a joke, and humor is injected into serious situations, completely erasing any feeling of something actually being at stake. After all, if the characters are cracking jokes, what they're fighting for must not be that important.
Once again, Marvel shits the bed when it comes to having a threatening villain. As Hela, Cate Blanchett is a step up from the useless villains Marvel usually produces, but even so, we're never really sure what exactly she's after. And when Thor devises a plan to stop her, it seemed to me that plan was simply doing Hela was out to accomplish in the first place. Other than that, she talks slow, walks, slow, and flicks her wrists a lot for various reasons.
The biggest problem with this movie is indicative of the entire MCU at this point. These movies simply can not stand on their own. They're so dependent on the viewer having seen all the other Marvel movies, that you'll be lost on many plot points if you go into this movie cold. Cameos by characters from other Marvel movies serve no point, other than to remind you that this movie is a part of a "cinematic universe"...two words, and a concept, I'd be glad to never deal with again.
Chris Hemsworth is solid as Thor, but he's always been rather unremarkable in the role. He does have a good chemistry with Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner/Hulk, but it's never really explained how Hulk was suddenly able to be such a chatterbox. Tessa Thompson is a welcome addition as Valkyrie. She has more layers to her character than any other in the movie, and looks great in tight leather. Tom Hiddleston is back...again...as Loki. It's never a good thing when the villain of your movie is more popular than the hero, and this movie completes Loki's transformation into full blown good guy. So, there's that.
All that being said, the movie is undeniable fun. It's has a very retro, Flash Gordon feel to it. Right down to a synthesized musical score that is a mixture of 70's science fiction, and 80's action movies. The action consists mostly of hand to hand fights, and for the most part, they're done very well. The final "three fights at once" scenario is reminiscent of movies like Return Of The Jedi, where the effects of all separate fights merge into one.
It's a fun, popcorn movie, and a major step up from the first two Thor movies. It's nothing great, or even memorable. But there's enough here to warrant additional viewings, and that's a first for this branch of the Marvel franchise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Dumb and Dumber To (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe that it is been 20 years since Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels brought the moronic Harry and Lloyd to the big screen. The comedic adventures of the well-meaning but idiotic best friends became a box office smash and has maintained a loyal worker fans despite the highly disappointing prequel that was made in an attempt to extend series. With the Farrelly brothers back in place to write and direct the long-awaited follow-up it should come as no surprise as to what viewers are in store for with “Dumb and Dumber To”.
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Sweeping up a few older films that I wanted to see but missed at the cinema in the last few years. My current IMDb watch list sits at 488, and, unlike this movie, never seems to shrink! There is a lot to keep up with. Bad reviews have kept me away from Alexander Payne’s Downsizing until now. I have to say, without the burden of expectation, it is a lot better than I thought it would be.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.
In particular, Sideways and The Descendents from the same Director are two of my absolute favourite light comedy satires of the last 20 years, so I am always interested to see what he is up to. He often has an eye for subtlety and relationships that can break the heart with truth. There is some of that on display here too, it has to be said, however, you do wonder if the sci-fi / CGI element of Downsizing got a little bit in the way?
It isn’t quite the film it could have been, and at times does feel messy and rushed. It also doesn’t follow through entirely with its premise, and perhaps that is what disappointed a lot of the audience. The idea of the small leaving the world of the large behind in search of an environmental solution to the world’s problems is compelling as a joke and allegorical devise… But it just isn’t explored to its full potential, and the visual effects that allow us to see this are years behind what they should have been.
Saying that, the personal journey’s of the main characters are relevent, funny, relatable and often unexpected. Matt Damon is totally fine and well cast; Christoph Waltz adds a counter-point humour and point of view that balances the political ethics of the subject very well; and both Kristen Wiig and Udi Keir offer support of deft pathos in minor roles.
The film truly belongs to Hong Chau, however. Without her multi-layered and show-stealing turn as a Vietnamese refugee, who “downsized” to escape tyranny, losing a limb in the process, the film would be much less than it ends up being. For its many faults, her performance lifts it to something worth watching, as long as you can forgive the argument that her character is a too broadly drawn race stereo-type. Honestly, I can’t see the problem, because I think what she does with it makes the movie – but I am aware of the problems with it…
As a political message and environmental allegory, the film as a whole raises some interesting debate, sometimes because of its (ahem) shortcomings. It is neither intelligent enough, nor funny enough to be a “good” film. But it is an entertaining film. If only to see the sequence of legal and medical procedure that leads to the new world of being small!
What would we be prepared to do to find an answer to a dying world, economic failure and personal unhappiness? Would we risk everything to find ourselves and a solution? Or would we carry on regardless? Feeling lost in a world of fear and looming disaster is a subject worth exploring, and I feel Downsizing asks enough questions well enough to be at least seen and argued with. If that is the only purpose it serves then… OK by me.
The bottom line is, I didn’t hate it. To see it at a rating of 5.7 on IMDb is strange and actually very interesting. It is not a bad film. It just doesn’t completely succeed. I think that score says much more about how vitriolic and opinionated people are becoming about environmental issues. Which is good. A missed opportunity perhaps, and therefore it earns a place in the bin marked “admirable failures”. See it for yourself if you haven’t – it has cult status written all over it, in very small writing.