Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pete's Dragon (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Lovely in every sense of the word
2016 really does belong to Disney. The House of Mouse has been churning out some incredible films this year with the live-action remake of The Jungle Book proving sceptical audiences (and critics) completely wrong.
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
The BFG was a pleasant and inoffensive adaptation of Roald Dahl’s wonderful novel and Finding Dory got Pixar back on the right track, and let’s not forget Captain America: Civil War, by far the best superhero film of the year.
Here, Disney continues its trend with recreating its classic cartoons in live-action; resurrecting Pete’s Dragon. But is this remake of the 1977 film of the same name as good as The Jungle Book?
Mr. Meacham (Robert Redford), a woodcarver, delights local children with stories of a mysterious dragon that lives deep in the woods of the Pacific Northwest. His daughter Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) believes these are just tall tales, until she meets Pete (Oakes Fegley), a 10-year-old orphan who says he lives in the woods with a giant, friendly dragon called Elliot. With help from a young girl named Natalie (Oona Laurence), Grace sets out to investigate if this fantastic claim can be true.
Director David Lowery helms the film with a quiet subtlety that automatically makes Pete’s Dragon a very different adaptation to Jon Favreau’s stomping Jungle Book. Here, the joy is in the storytelling rather than popping on a set of nostalgia glasses and settling in for the journey.
Acting wise, it’s a pretty formulaic affair. Bryce Dallas Howard, in her first major role since last year’s smash hit Jurassic World, is as likeable as ever and like the film itself, commands the screen with an understated presence. Elsewhere, Oakes Fegley gives a cracking portrayal of Pete.
Naturally, the main character throughout is Elliot, the big friendly dragon. This bright green behemoth is rendered in wonderful CGI, with each gust of wind lifting his fur beautifully. Considering the film’s modest $65million budget, Elliot is utterly believable in each and every scene.
The lush forest landscape provides a mesmerising backdrop on which to construct a film and David Lowery takes the audience on sweeping journeys across the tree-tops, brilliantly juxtaposed with confined caves and the woodland floor.
Unfortunately, the deforestation side plot is never truly explored with Karl Urban’s underdeveloped “villain” proving to be a slight undoing in this near perfect remake.
Thankfully though, the themes of family, friendship and never giving up despite the odds are explored to their fullest – these are themes that Disney knows how to do better than any other studio and the emotional heart that brings to Pete’s Dragon ensures teary eyes are inevitable.
Overall, Disney has done it again. Just five months after the phenomenal Jungle Book remake, the studio has got it spot on with Pete’s Dragon. The two films couldn’t be further apart, with this one succeeding in its quiet dignity. It is in every sense of the word – lovely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/16/lovely-in-every-sense-of-the-word-petes-dragon-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rhino Hero in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
What’s that on top of that building? It’s a…..rhino? Yes – you’re not hallucinating! Your neighborhood caped-crusader is indeed none other than Rhino Hero! Although not necessarily the most nimble of superheroes, he always gives 100% when it comes to protecting his people!
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2018
Not just a good "kids" movie, but a good "movie" movie
INCREDIBLES 2 is one of the best movies that has been released, thus far, in 2018.
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Now...there is some debate as to whether that is praise of this film, or a damnation of the lackluster year (thus far) in film.
But...let's start with praising this film. Coming into Cinemas 14 years after the original film, this sequel picks up the story where the first INCREDIBLES film left off (the beauty of cartoon films - the actors don't age) and starts right off with a fun action sequence that, then, sets up the rest of the story.
Brad Bird (THE IRON GIANT) returns as the Director and Writer of this film (he also wrote and directed the first Incredibles film) and his deft touch shows through usage of humor, character, plot and action - all nicely blended to keep the film rolling along. He also was able to get wonderful performances from his talented voice cast.
Holly Hunter and Craig T. Nelson reprise their roles as "Mr & Mrs. Incredible" and hearing them banter back and forth - and seeing these two characters back on the screen - was like pulling on a pair of comfortable shoes. It was good to see/hear them again. Samuel L. Jackson is perfectly cast as their best friend/Allie Frozone and Brad Bird himself is wonderfully funny as Edna. Joining these two is Bob Odekenirk and Katherine Keener as brother and sister Winston and Evelyn Deavor - the duo that hires the Incredibles. Both are terrifically talented character performers and slid right into the swing of things here. Eli Fucile continues the "baby-talk" of Jack-Jack Incredible and Huck Milner takes over the role of Dash Incredible - both are good.
But it is the work of Sarah Vowell as angsty teen Violet Incredible that stood out for me. I had no idea who performed this character - and had vague recollections of Violet from the first film - but she is front and center and was so extremely entertainingly real as the teenage daughter that I had to look up who is the voice. To my surprise, this teenager was voiced (yet, again) by a now almost 50 year old radio journalist, critic, reporter and editor (best know for her work on NPR's THIS AMERICAN LIFE). I had no clue that I wasn't listening to a teenage girl - she is that good, and that believable. And I should know, I HAVE a teenage daughter!
While the first INCREDIBLES is my #1 Pixar film, I'll have to sit on this one for awhile to see where this one lands - pretty high up the list, I'm sure. I could quibble on a few things - the motivations of the "bad guy" is paper thin and the humor relies just a bit too much on the Jack-Jack character, but all-in-all this is a top notch Pixar film - and a top notch SuperHero film. Proving that a good Pixar movie isn't just a good "kid" movie, but a good "movie" movie as well.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars - and you take that to the BankofMarquis
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
JT (287 KP) rated Buried (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Shot with a low budget and entirely in one location (inside Paul’s coffin), Buried is a very intense and gripping movie, which plays on the age-old human fear of being buried alive and takes it to whole new levels.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Paul not only has to deal with thoughts of his almost imminent demise, but he also has to endure the psychological torment that comes with realising that your loved ones are in terrible danger and that the people whom your life depends upon don’t really care about your fate. This is the story of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds), an American contractor working on an assignment in Iraq, who wakes up in something which looks like a makeshift wooden coffin, alone, and with no recollection of when and how he ended up there. All he remembers is that he and his colleagues were attacked by a group of Iraqi insurgents.
Understandably, he begins to panic, frantically trying to escape before realising that he won’t be able to do it on his own. Whoever buried him left a mobile phone, a lighter, a knife, a torch and some glow sticks in the coffin, and such items quickly become Paul’s connection to the outside world and his only hope of survival.
This situation is so exceptional (thankfully) that the film’s real challenge is to try and represent it as realistically as possible. What would you do? Would you let the nerves get the better of you, or would your will to live step in instead, and make you stay focused in trying to save yourself?
Ryan Reynolds does an excellent job in this, his Paul Conroy is human, desperate, scared, with no superhero pretence. The direction, by Rodrigo Cortes, is vivid, realistic, and makes good use of the limited space that the coffin setting allows to show; anxious people should try watching this anyway because, while it is undoubtedly claustrophobic, Paul’s determination to stay alive and the pull of wanting to know what’s going on outside keeps the mind occupied.
The voice of Hostage Work Group operator Dan Brenner (Robert Paterson) is possibly a little too “staged” and “actorish”, making it sound somewhat fake but also sinister, going to heighten the feeling of dread. Buried manages to be scary, tense, and yet ironic in representing the ignorance, incompetence and cowardice behind the behaviours of people we are supposed to trust in dangerous situations.
The whole film maintains a focused and realistic eye on the suffering of the protagonist – because we are supposed to feel what he feels, to be there with him in his fight for life- except maybe in a few moments when it slips into “mainstream”, cheap stratagems to reiterate that Paul is a good man who doesn’t deserve his fate (for example, when he calls his ill, senile mother who lives in a home and can’t even remember him).
Definitely best watched in a cinema screen rather than on DVD, this is a film which is very well done, and interesting; you will want to see what happens of Paul but also how his story is told from the confines of his coffin buried underground.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Anarchic and very funny script, with some great visual gags (1 more)
Elba, Davis and Robbie all great. As is new name Daniela Melchior.
What a difference a "The" makes! The original "Suicide Squad" from 2016 was a botched and lacklustre affair, getting just 5/10 from me. James Gunn's semi-reboot is hyper-violent, overlong, totally ludicrous but a whole bunch of fun.
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- "From the horribly beautiful mind of James Gunn" gushes the trailer. But in this case, they ain't kidding. The film is (at times) hugely inventive in its visual gags as well as its dialogue. On the DC/Marvel superhero spectrum, this is right up at the "Ragnarok" end in terms of comedy value. It made me guffaw a good dozen times.
- To match that, the action scenes are suitably ludicrous and over-the-top. They feature the most "out there" big-boss since Mr Stay Puft terrorised New York in the original "Ghostbusters"!
- All the cast seem to be having a blast, which carries you, as the audience, along with the fun. Both Viola Davis and Idris Elba add real gravitas at the middle of it all, but Robbie's reprise of Harley Quinn tends to get all the best lines and the most memorable sequences. Her petal-strewn decimation of a platoon of security guards is something to behold.
- But of the lesser-known names, it's Daniela Melchior who really stood out for me as Cleo Cazo - Ratcatcher 2. This appears to be the first non-Portuguese feature she's done, and a great future beckons I think. Such extraordinary screen presence! Loved her character too: a "millennial" who sleeps in and questions what an OHP is!
- Great music choices, as you would expect from the "Guardians of the Galaxy" guy.
Negatives:
- Like Polka-Dot's mum, the comedy style is all over the place! (You have to have watched the movie to understand that gag!). I guess that's true of any comedy, but a number of the jokes feel contrived and didn't fully land.
- There is just so much gratuitous violence in this one that I am frankly amazed that the BBFC awarded it only a UK "15" certificate (this is my second query in a row to the BBFC - they need to employ me!). I reckon this will prove to have the highest body count of any movie in 2021. It's all done in a comic-book style, but when "Army of the Dead" (review still to follow) gets an "18", I'm not quite sure why this is much different.
Summary Thoughts on "The Suicide Squad": I'd mentally set myself up to really hate this one. But the opposite turned out to be true. As a comedy it made me laugh like a drain at times, and although some of the violence went somewhat over the top for me, I thought it to be a fine summer popcorn blockbuster (but very much for adults).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Freaky (2021) in Movies
Jul 3, 2021
No, not like the Disney version
Some B-movies really pack a much bigger punch than you would expect. "Nobody" is a perfect recent example. But movie karma needs to be balanced with something. Ladies and gentlemen - "Freaky"!
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Positives:
- If you are into your "teen slasher" movies, then this is more of the same and features some innovative ways to dispatch the victims. One is certainly no way to treat a fine wine!
- Vince Vaughn has fun mincing around as his alter-ego and Kathryn Newton (soon to be in the next "Ant-Man" movie) is personable enough as the cutie-cum-serial-killer.
- It's always good to see Ferris-actor Alan Ruck on the big screen. Here, he actually plays two parts in the film. (This joke (C) One Mann's Movies.)
Negatives:
- It's flagged as "comedy/horror" but failed to meet my personal 6-laugh test. It's just not funny enough to pass muster unless, that is, you view crude dialogue as "funny". And the dialogue does get ickily crude at some points. For example, when evil-Millie ends up alone with three jocks, there's a line of misogynist dialogue (that I won't repeat) but which sets the level.
- As a Blumhouse production, the horror is ultra-gory which will put off many viewers lacking a strong stomach. But because of the associated black comedy, the horror isn't remotely tense or scary. This might be why the film only got a UK-15 certificate. But my personal view is that, with the violence and the offensive dialogue, the BBFC under called this one, and it should have been an 18.
- There's a lot of schmaltz layered on regarding the relationship between Millie and her mum (Katie Finneran, channelling a Laura Dern look). A store cubicle exchange between Finneran and Vaughn is particularly stomach-churning.
- The movie leaves logic at the door many times. A formulaic post-finale ending assumes a superhero ability to shrug off bullets.
Summary Thoughts on "Freaky": The 'body-swap idea has gone through dozens of movie versions, with Disney's "Freaky Friday" the most well known: it's actually had two outings, once in 1976 with a young Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris and again in 2003 with Lindsay Lohan and Jamie-Lee Curtis. (The latter is a firm Mann-family favourite).
This new version tries a serial-killer twist on the story, which is a good idea. But the movie fails to execute well on the concept. The director is Christopher Landon who did the "Happy Death Day" movies. This is in a similar vein. So teens who enjoyed those flicks might get a fun Saturday night out with this. But, for me, this fell between the stools of comedy and horror and is instantly forgettable.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/03/freaky-no-its-not-remotely-like-the-disney-version/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies). Thanks.)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Avengers West Coast: Darker than Scarlet in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I took advantage of some great Marvel sales on Comixology the end of last month. It was a great opportunity to revisit HOUSE OF M (which I had own the TPB of it when still owned the physical copies, instead of the digital ones I now favor). I bought that one, WCA: DARKER THAN SCARLET, X-MEN: DECIMATION - SON OF M, DECIMATION: HOUSE OF M - THE DAY AFTER, and AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. I started WCA: DTS the end of last week, finishing it up today.
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 22, 2020 (Updated Jul 5, 2021)
In this sequel to the so far best film of the DCEU, Patty Jenkins dares to ask, what if Wishmaster was a family friendly superhero movie?
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Wonder Woman 1984 is an overall mixed experience, but let's begin with some positives. For a start, Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman through and through. She shined in the first movie, and is just as bright the second time around. What ever plans are afoot for the future of the DCEU, she should rightly be at the forefront.
Another cast highlight is Kristen Wiig. Her character is designed to be the sympathetic good guy who yearns for more acceptance and influence on the people around her, the relatable type, who inevitably turns into the tragic antagonist. Her arc is handled so-so, and is plagued with cliché "nerdy-girl-becomes-attractive" moments, but Wiig is clearly having a blast in this role, and the movie is better for having her around.
Pedro Pascal is also here as classic DC villain Maxwell Lord. He camps it up to the max, and does well in the seedy businessman type role, but again, his arc is handled in a so-so manner.
It has some genuinely decent set pieces. Highlights include a fun (if a little drawn out) opening scene, and then the big desert car chase glimpsed in the trailers. The CGI is also pretty good (for the most part, I'll get to that in a second) and a few more out-there details (no spoilers here) lifted straight from the comics that add that extra sweet spot of nerdy delight.
This all being said, WW84 does unfortunately suffer from a few pitfalls. The big glaring problem is the pacing. This film is 2.5 hours long, and boy does it drag in places. It could have easily lost 30 minutes without impacting the story, and the end results feels bloated and a bit directionless.
As mentioned above, the effects are great for the most part, but as the trailers show, Cheetah looks a little...off when she eventually turns up. She sort of looks like a colourless CGI blob when engaged in battle, and it's a shame, because some of the close ups look great, as is the overall design of her character.
Some of the narrative beats are a bit choppy, I get the feeling that some parts were cut that could have better explained some things, and then there are some plot beats that just straight up don't make a lick of sense.
And then there's Steve Trevor... Chris Pine is enjoyable enough as per usual, but honestly, his inclusion just feels a little forced. There's an obvious morally tearing plot point as to why he's here, but I felt that overall he just added to the bloatedness. And that's without addressing weird, kind of rapey body possession thing that's going on.
I had an ok time with WW84, but it's held back by a shit tonne of unnecessary clutter that seals it's status as an inferior sequel.
Extreme Shooting 3D Adventure
Games
App
Are you ready for most exciting army game the Extreme shooting 3D adventure? You love to play this...