Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tank Battle: Game Bắn Tăng 3D
Games
App
Are you ready for the War III ? Download now one of the best tank games, it's totally FREE now! ...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Better than Suicide Squad
Did you catch the 2016 DCEU disappointment SUICIDE SQUAD with Will Smith as Deadshot and Jared Leto as the Joker? Many people (myself included) thought that that film was "just fine, nothing special" but were impressed with the way Margot Robbie handled the Harley Quinn character and wished for a standalone film that featured the Harley Quinn character.
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Be careful what you wish for.
BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) is the answer to that wish and while it is slightly better than SUICIDE SQUAD, it still isn't all that....well...Fantabulous... of a film.
BIRDS OF PREY (which I hear is now being relabeled HARLEY QUINN: BIRDS OF PREY) is produced by Margot Robbie's production company and features an all female lead cast (the villain is a male) and a female Writer and a female Director. Consequently, this is a "female empowerment" film where the self-described "tough chicks" band together to defeat the male villain.
I applaud the effort and the idea behind the movie, but as a film, this one didn't quite work for me.
I start with the main focus of this film - Harley Quinn. This is just not a character, I discovered, that I want to spend an entire film with. She is, at it turns out, a very good SUPPORTING character, but not one that is interesting enough (at least for me) to carry a whole movie. I will give Margot Robbie credit...her interpretation of the character is interesting and that performance kept me focused throughout.
The other Birds of Prey are just as interesting. For the first time in I can't tell you, Rosie Perez did not annoy me in her role. She played earnest, frustrated Police Officer Renee Montoya and I found myself rooting for her when she was on the screen. Same goes for Jurnee Smollett-Bell's interpretation of Black Canary a character I knew very little about and was intrigued (though her "Super Power" was suddenly sprung on the audience with very little foreshadowing - foreshadowing that could have helped). And, finally, Mary Elizabeth Winstead almost steals the film as the revenge-seeking Huntress, a character I really enjoyed and hope I see again (though, I'm learning my lesson - let it be as a supporting character in another film and not her own, standalone film).
So, this film has 4 interesting characters at the top, but the issue is that they don't come together as a team until VERY late in the film (in a finale showdown that was the highlight of the film for me), so I really couldn't tell if there was any chemistry between these characters/actresses. I think there MIGHT have been, but no real sample size to tell.
Fairing less well as a character was Ewan McGregor's one-note take on super-narcissistic Roman Sionis/Black Mask. The character was pretty much in front of you at the start of the film and was still the same one-note character at the end. Also not "doing it for me" was Ella Jay Basco as Cassandra Cain, the street kid that becomes the focal point of the bad guys in the film (and the character the Birds of Prey must band together to save). I didn't much care for this character - or the performance - so I had no real emotional investment in whether or not the Birds of Prey could save her.
The Direction by Cathy Yan is professional and competent and the final showdown does show signs of originality and brilliance. I'll give her credit, she caught my attention with the last 1/2 hour of this film - much more so than she did with the first 79 minutes.
A better effort at this type of anti-hero comic book adventure (certainly better than SUICIDE SQUAD) but the DCEU still has not stuck the landing on this.
I encourage them to keep trying.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
Overkill 3
Games and Entertainment
App
8 environments with more than 60 battlefields, 4 game modes and over 30 guns to shoot your way...
Strawberry Shortcake Dress Up Dreams
Entertainment and Games
App
Budge Studios™ presents Strawberry Shortcake Dress Up Dreams! You’re invited to Strawberry...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 3, 2022
When audiences last saw Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) he had accidentally opened a portal into
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
other universe or as they are known, Multiverses in an attempt to help Spider-man.
In the new Marvel film “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness” the Sorcerer finds himself disturbed by dreams of himself and a mysterious girl battling an evil presence but something about it does not seem right and he puts it down to conflicted feelings over attending the wedding of his ex-Christine (Rachel McAdams).
Before he can fully process his feelings, Strange is soon battling a giant creature that appears to be trying to capture the very girl from his dreams. With the help of Wong (Benedict Wong), they are able to save the day and learn that the girl whose name is America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) has an uncontrolled ability to travel across the Multiverse and that a demon is after her as he wants her powers for himself.
Facing a threat to their very existence, the group seeks the help of Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olson) and attempts to convince the former Avenger to aid them. Things take a very dark turn soon after as the true nature of the threat facing them comes to light and Strange and America flees into the Multiverse in an attempt to save the universe as they know it.
The film hits the ground running with a great action sequence which is followed a bit later by another before it becomes a bit bogged down in metaphysical and multi-dimensional conversations. Thankfully the strong characters help hold your interest during the slower parts of the film and the finale plays out well giving fans the action and character development that they would want.
Much has been made about the cameos in the film and while I will confirm that they are there I will not spoil them and I will say that several of the wilder theories are not true.
Director Sam Raimi has made a triumphant return to Super Hero movies as this outing combines what fans expect from a comic book-based film and blends it with supernatural horror to create a darker and more intense Marvel film than many have been used to.
The effects in the film are top-notch but it is the strong performances that drive the film not the effects and the movie opens up so many possibilities for the future. There are two bonus scenes in the credits and a promise that Doctor Strange will return. It has been reported that Marvel Producer Kevin Feige and his team have already plotted out the next ten years of Marvel films beyond what has already been announced and I cannot wait to see where they go next as Marvel has once again shown that by giving fans inter-connected stories that are well-planned and part of a living-universe, or in this case Multiverse, that they have plenty of material to come.
4 stars out of 5
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 18, 2023
The Best DCEU Film Since the original WONDER WOMAN
At this point in time, the average movie-going public is suffering from “Super-Hero” fatigue, and (more than likely) “multi-verse” fatigue because the latest entries in this genre all are tapping the same type of experience (in order to pull in properties/characters from other films). It’s a smart strategy from a Movie Executive point-of-view as they can bring in other, generally liked/loved characters from previous films/entities.
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)