Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Uncle Buck (1989) in Movies
Mar 18, 2018
Hilarious
My Movies 365 journey has taken me deep into 80's territory, with Uncle Buck being my next up to review. Released in 1989, it just squeezes into the decade but is perfect for it. The 80's trend is becoming clearer with every film I watch: It was all about having fun. No strong depth. No taking itself too seriously. If you were going to see a film in the 80's, you were there for the sole purpose of having a good time. Did I have a good time watching Uncle Buck? Absolutely!
The film is simple in its design, yet still manages to have a ton of classic scenes. How many takes do you think it took to film the memorable Q&A scene with John Candy and McCauley Caulkin? I crack up just thinking about it so I can only imagine how hard it was for them. And Uncle Buck's car? Oh my God, the car! Hooptiest of hoopties. I don't know what's funnier, hearing its shotgun exhaust for the first time or watching everyone scatter for their lives.
Uncle Buck is called in to help babysit after his brother and sister-in-law have to go out of town to deal with an emergency. Other than the fact that there's no real substance to the movie, I don't really have anything bad to say about it. John Candy is perfect in his role as Buck. He's lived a life full of mistakes, but he's a great guy at heart. How can you not love a guy that will make you table-sized pancakes and punch out a clown for your birthday? My Favorite Line: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!"
Recommended by an Uncle Kory, I'm so glad Uncle Buck made it's way onto my movie list. I'm giving it an 85.
The film is simple in its design, yet still manages to have a ton of classic scenes. How many takes do you think it took to film the memorable Q&A scene with John Candy and McCauley Caulkin? I crack up just thinking about it so I can only imagine how hard it was for them. And Uncle Buck's car? Oh my God, the car! Hooptiest of hoopties. I don't know what's funnier, hearing its shotgun exhaust for the first time or watching everyone scatter for their lives.
Uncle Buck is called in to help babysit after his brother and sister-in-law have to go out of town to deal with an emergency. Other than the fact that there's no real substance to the movie, I don't really have anything bad to say about it. John Candy is perfect in his role as Buck. He's lived a life full of mistakes, but he's a great guy at heart. How can you not love a guy that will make you table-sized pancakes and punch out a clown for your birthday? My Favorite Line: "Take this quarter, go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that thing off your face!"
Recommended by an Uncle Kory, I'm so glad Uncle Buck made it's way onto my movie list. I'm giving it an 85.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Money Monster (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Growing up, whenever a political or economic scandal was featured on the news, my father would utter the words, “Follow the money.” This phrase was made famous by “Deep Throat” during the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the Nixon Administration. In the film Money Monster which stars George Clooney and Julia Roberts, this is a question that we start to ask ourselves as a financial investment show is taken captive by a disgruntled investor while it is airing live.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Clooney, who serves as the show’s host, quickly finds himself in the middle of a storm of tension and deception as he and his captor try to discover what happened to over $800 million in investments. The film itself is sufficient as an overview for satisfying our need for some sense of understanding at how corrupt and unstable the financial industry can be. Through much of the film, I found myself wondering about how many people wanted these same answers in 2008 during the financial market meltdowns and the collapse of the housing markets. The film approaches this anger that hit the American working class, but do not delve deeper than the superficial issues and discontent. There is a major lack of depth and this might be a metaphor for the industry itself that is built on confusion, misdirection, and a lack of substance. The plot is simplistic and does not allow for any surprises or twists.
It is a very straightforward movie where a flawed character wants answers. He wants closure. He wants to bring to justice the people who ruined the lives of countless Americans and took advantage of their desire to experience the American Dream. Despite the lack of complexity and a few holes in the storytelling, Money Monster provides a few laughs and leaves the audience asking questions about how deep the problems and corruption may be within our financial system nearly 8 years after the collapse. It makes us want to “follow the money” in the hopes that we will find answers.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Lucy (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Luc Besson’s latest film will leave you impressed, and possibly a little confused.
Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, comes out this Friday and is Besson’s (Fifth Element, The Professional) most recent stab at something a little bit different.
The film opens with Johansson’s character, Lucy, having an argument with her boyfriend about dropping off a case with unknown contents. After a lot of arguing (and having it handcuffed to her), Lucy is forced into going inside to make the delivery.
As she does, the director takes us on an interesting visual representation of her feelings using scenes similar to what most people recognize from National Geographic, complete with a cheetah hunting a gazelle. The scenes are punctuated by her cheetah-print jacket.
As the story continues, an Asian drug lord uses her as a mule for the substance inside the case. The bag breaks and the chemical starts changing Lucy, evolving her into something… different.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen cinematography of this unique nature, where scenes were spliced in to express the character’s feelings. It’s unusual for a serious film (but still often done in a humorous way). Besson has done a masterful job of integrating serious moments, compelling action, and humor in a Fifth-Element-style to make a fluid, dynamic film. That said, it can feel slightly awkward at times.
I found myself laughing at the humor and engaged by the action, but most of all I was confused as to what I was watching.
This film seems very much akin to an episode of Cosmos. It’s interlaced with a story and some action, but purposefully meant to make a statement about human evolution.
Overall, I’d say this is a film well worth seeing. The acting was great, the cinematography was fantastic, and the direction was beautifully done. The main reason I feel it’s worth spending your money to see on the big screen is because of the gorgeous special effects, which were integrated in a captivating manner.
Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson and Morgan Freeman, comes out this Friday and is Besson’s (Fifth Element, The Professional) most recent stab at something a little bit different.
The film opens with Johansson’s character, Lucy, having an argument with her boyfriend about dropping off a case with unknown contents. After a lot of arguing (and having it handcuffed to her), Lucy is forced into going inside to make the delivery.
As she does, the director takes us on an interesting visual representation of her feelings using scenes similar to what most people recognize from National Geographic, complete with a cheetah hunting a gazelle. The scenes are punctuated by her cheetah-print jacket.
As the story continues, an Asian drug lord uses her as a mule for the substance inside the case. The bag breaks and the chemical starts changing Lucy, evolving her into something… different.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen cinematography of this unique nature, where scenes were spliced in to express the character’s feelings. It’s unusual for a serious film (but still often done in a humorous way). Besson has done a masterful job of integrating serious moments, compelling action, and humor in a Fifth-Element-style to make a fluid, dynamic film. That said, it can feel slightly awkward at times.
I found myself laughing at the humor and engaged by the action, but most of all I was confused as to what I was watching.
This film seems very much akin to an episode of Cosmos. It’s interlaced with a story and some action, but purposefully meant to make a statement about human evolution.
Overall, I’d say this is a film well worth seeing. The acting was great, the cinematography was fantastic, and the direction was beautifully done. The main reason I feel it’s worth spending your money to see on the big screen is because of the gorgeous special effects, which were integrated in a captivating manner.
Univadis FR
Medical and Health & Fitness
App
Univadis vous offre un accès simple aux actualités et outils essentiels de la médecine...
Letters from an American Farmer
J. Hector St. John de Crevecoeur and Susan Manning
Book
'to the European, the American is first and foremost a dollar-fiend. We tend to forget the emotional...
JU
Journalists Under Fire: The Psychological Hazards of Covering War
Chris Hedges and Anthony Feinstein
Book
As journalists in Iraq and other hot spots around the world continue to face harrowing dangers and...
PI
Personal Identity and Applied Ethics: A Historical and Philosophical Introduction
Book
'Soul', 'self', 'substance' and 'person' are just four of the terms often used to describe the human...
Time Out Stockholm City Guide
Book
Which? Recommended Provider: In 2014, Time Out Guides was rated top guidebook brand by Which?...
A Voice as Old as Time: Contemplations for Spiritual Transformation
Book
In his second book, Energy Healer and Transformational Coach David Bennett uses contemplations to...