Search
TT
There to be Shot at: The Autobiography of Tony Coton
Book
Tony Coton is a natural-born fighter - both on and off the pitch. Rejected by Wolverhampton...
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Action movies really don't get any better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first heard about this film I had really high expectations. Sylvester Stallone writing, directing and starring in an action film. He was trying to bring together some of the greatest stars of action films past and present, it sounded too good to be true. As the months went by I kept hearing rumours as to who was in it. Pretty much every name from action films was mentioned. Then the biggest rumour of them all, it was going to star Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger! Never gonna happen I thought. I was never so glad to be wrong. The scene they appeared in may only be a few minutes long but it was perfect.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
Last Man Standing: Mort Sahl and the Birth of Modern Comedy
Book
On December 22, 1953, Mort Sahl (b. 1927) took the stage at San Francisco's hungry i and changed...
comedy film
JT (287 KP) rated Escape From L.A. (1996) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
John Carpenter’s offering into the world of sequels couldn’t have been worse. Kurt Russell said he had a desire to play Snake Plissken once again and to be honest I wished he hadn’t bothered.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Some assembly required
There's a lot about this movie I love (it used to be one of my favorite films to rewatch when I was a teenager), one thing that really stood out to me about watching this again for the first time in awhile, is how much Whedon understands the language of comics.
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Blissful Birth by Glenn Harrold & Janey Lee Grace: Advice & Self-Hypnosis Relaxation
Health & Fitness and Education
App
Blissful Birth is the ultimate app to help you before, during and after giving birth. Having a...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
Tarantino makes good movies, I like them, but I don't love them. When everyone was raving about the OUATIH trailer I was sitting back going "that looks okay, but..." I wasn't sure I could see how they were going to mix the two strands of the story together, or why. After seeing it I'm still not sure.
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
I'm not going to do an extended synopsis for this, partly because I'm not sure what the point was to a lot of it. 2 hours and 41 minutes is a lot of time to fill with such random stuff. There are essentially to films here, and I definitely would have wanted to watch one of them. It doesn't matter how many times I think about this film, I can't make sense of why these stories were put together.
There's a lot of acting talent in this, obviously. I'm not a particular fan of DiCaprio, I can't give you a real reason behind that. I don't mind some of his older films but recently nothing has really caught my eye. He has some excellent moments in this though. I particularly liked the scene where he's on set explaining the story of his novel to his young co-star. The audience and Rick are able to reach the realisation at the same time, it's a moving moment that was annoyingly ruined for me by Trudi's lines afterwards. I guess it does reflect the way Hollywood is though so in that respect it was spot on.
Brad Pitt swooped in and stole the show though. There's a very laid back and sometimes cheeky sense to Cliff, and most of his scenes had me engaged with what was going on. The only thing I would say though is that occasionally you just see Brad Pitt and other characters he's portrayed in this performance. He really does have a strong presence though and apart from those small blips he was by far the best performance of the film and my favourite scenes were his fight with Bruce Lee and the last ten minutes. Both of these were done so well and Pitt's reactions were perfect.
The cast has a lot of bit parters in it, I'm never quite sure what gets something classed as a cameo over a "proper" role. As we're in Hollywood there are obviously a lot of Hollywood stars making appearances and they've all got really strong casting behind them, but they barely get any screen time. We get some Sharon Tate background from Steve McQueen (Damien Lewis) at a party, later on we have Bruce Lee appear for the onset fight scene, there are a lot of faces popping up everywhere.
I briefly want to mention Bruce Lee in this film, since seeing the film I read a couple of pieces about his portrayal in this... I know nothing about him as a person beyond his martial arts skills and while I did find the Lee/Booth fight scene amusing I thought it was a little... off? Lee comes across as a bit of an arse, there's no denying that. Like I said, I know nothing about him, this could be a true depiction but I feel like I would have heard that before if he was. Regardless of the truth, the character didn't come across well, he could easily have been given a slightly cocky demeanour to allow for the challenge to happen without giving him that persona.
I haven't got enough time to talk about every actor in the film but there wasn't anyone who stuck out as being bad, every role was handled reasonably well. Whether they all needed to be there though is another matter.
Earlier I mentioned that the film has two story threads, those being Rick Dalton/Cliff Booth and Sharon Tate. We get the odd crossover moment with the two but ultimately there's no proper link until the end. One of the problems going into the film is that if you don't know anything about Sharon Tate and Charles Manson then one of these storylines isn't going to make a great deal of sense. I'd be interested to see how people going in without that knowledge found the story overall, there have to be some out there right?
OUATIH almost seems like an introduction to Manson being in Mindhunter season 2, you've even got potential crossover as he's played by the same guy. I found the Manson inclusion to be very misleading in the advertising. His appearance is beyond brief in the final cut and it felt like we were due a lot more after watching the trailer. I think I would have preferred the movie if it was weighted the other way with the Tate/Manson side as the focus and the Dalton/Booth side at the add on.
Despite Pitt's performance, the great setting and some other small highlight this film just didn't hit the right notes for me. It was so long, I could have forgiven that had there been a more complex link between the two bits of story. I went in with low expectations and when I came out those were only just met.
If you're considering leaving partway through this there are three reasons that you should stick it out.
- Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth
- Booth's dog
- The last ten minutes (give or take)
The 18 certificate is there for "strong bloody violence", somehow the large amount of drug use doesn't warrant inclusion on the card. Up until around the 2 hour 30 minutes mark this film is a 15. You've had drugs, language and some fights, but nothing that matches up to those last few minutes. They earn that 18 certificate... and it's hilarious. Cliff and his dog are epic and it was worth the rest of the film just to see that, there's some terrible (ridiculous) acting in it that potentially it could have done without but at least I came out slightly less annoyed.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/08/once-upon-time-in-hollywood-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Evan Almighty (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) is a man who is going places. When last we saw Evan in “Bruce Almighty”, he was playing the foil to Jim Carrey and having one of the most spectacular on air meltdowns ever recorded.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.