Search
Search results
Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
I can't quite decide how to classify this book, although I kept telling people I was reading a crime thriller. But it's a little more than that, as Darren works to prevent crime by thwarting gang efforts in a place called The Orchard. He manages to do this by using a suit specifically designed to enhance his own abilities multiple times over, making him faster, stronger, and ultimately bullet-proof. The resulting encounters with criminals are sometimes hilarious when they see that they're basically fighting Iron Man.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There were aspects that got a little technical and went a little over my head, when Darren and Adam were explaining how they created the suit, what all software/technology went into it, etc., but it was still understandable enough to keep me in the story. Aside from that part, I was deeply engrossed in how Darren could pull of these feats, why he did it (when it got that part), and the little mini-stories from the perspective of the would-be victims, had he not stepped in to help. And I found myself reading the introduction over and over again (I even got my husband to read it), because I was just so fascinated at what can be done with technology now!! It really grabbed my attention, the first chapter sucked me in, and the rest of the book made sure to never let me go.
Finally, while not a major part, there's an exchange between Darren and Corrine about the difference between a justice system and a legal system, as well as one between Darren and a judge that involves such things as the psychology of the courtroom and law. I found both these discussions very interesting, as I majored in Forensic Psychology, and the term "justice system" was used quite often, often interchangeably with "legal system." To hear the two explained in stark contrast to one another and how they differ was something that really added to the story and bolstered Darren's cause, in my opinion. And to hear the judge talk about the theatrics of the courtroom and how it's all ritualistic and intimidating really got me thinking, as well. Kudos to the author for throwing those two bits of dialogue in the story.
5 stars, and I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a good off-the-beaten-path superhero story =)
I can't quite decide how to classify this book, although I kept telling people I was reading a crime thriller. But it's a little more than that, as Darren works to prevent crime by thwarting gang efforts in a place called The Orchard. He manages to do this by using a suit specifically designed to enhance his own abilities multiple times over, making him faster, stronger, and ultimately bullet-proof. The resulting encounters with criminals are sometimes hilarious when they see that they're basically fighting Iron Man.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. There were aspects that got a little technical and went a little over my head, when Darren and Adam were explaining how they created the suit, what all software/technology went into it, etc., but it was still understandable enough to keep me in the story. Aside from that part, I was deeply engrossed in how Darren could pull of these feats, why he did it (when it got that part), and the little mini-stories from the perspective of the would-be victims, had he not stepped in to help. And I found myself reading the introduction over and over again (I even got my husband to read it), because I was just so fascinated at what can be done with technology now!! It really grabbed my attention, the first chapter sucked me in, and the rest of the book made sure to never let me go.
Finally, while not a major part, there's an exchange between Darren and Corrine about the difference between a justice system and a legal system, as well as one between Darren and a judge that involves such things as the psychology of the courtroom and law. I found both these discussions very interesting, as I majored in Forensic Psychology, and the term "justice system" was used quite often, often interchangeably with "legal system." To hear the two explained in stark contrast to one another and how they differ was something that really added to the story and bolstered Darren's cause, in my opinion. And to hear the judge talk about the theatrics of the courtroom and how it's all ritualistic and intimidating really got me thinking, as well. Kudos to the author for throwing those two bits of dialogue in the story.
5 stars, and I'd recommend this to anyone who likes a good off-the-beaten-path superhero story =)
Andy K (10826 KP) rated Brightburn (2019) in Movies
Oct 19, 2019
I like the idea of a horror superhero genre but...
Brightburn is a classic modern example of a great idea, with mediocre execution.
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
The classic "Superman" story is turned on its head in a way when a spaceship falls to Earth with a baby within. The young couple who live on a farm decide to adopt the infant as their own. Now 12 years old, young Brandon starts to feel differently. He is compelled to seek out his mother ship now locked inside the depths of a barn where he seems to receive unknown demonic instruction.
Things aren't going well at school either. He injures a young girl's hand after an incident where she fails to catch his fall while playing a game of trust during their physical education class. Afterwards, the girl's mother has some distasteful words to say about Brandon which he overhears and his lust for retribution emerges.
The lack of specific direction or even which genre this movie wanted to inhabit is its biggest flaw (which means bad screenplay). At some points it was underdog outcast teen drama and at others darkened house jump scare or even some scenes involving gruesome gory horror. The first half of the short 90 minutes was devoted to establishing Brandon's status at school and with his family and wasn't terribly interesting while the 2nd half was just the standard gruesome kill after gruesome kill which were cool I guess, but won't stay with me.
Going in, I really thought the film was going to be more epic and concentrate on his emerge and then quest for world domination (which was only shown during the end credits) which I think would have been way more interesting, similar to Chronicle which was done in a much more interesting way than this.
Maybe they were hoping for huge success so the 2nd film could've explained more of the origin story. I guess I don't mind that nothing as to the source of the spaceship or the creatures within were explained. I don't need every plot point spoon fed to me, but it was a wasted opportunity to create a new completely original super villain universe which they could've drawn from indefinitely.
Is Brightburn supposed to be an antihero? Are you supposed to root for him to avenge the wrongs he has had in his ife or are you simply supposed to cringe like you would when Jason or Michael hack into a sex crazed teenager?
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
If I was still 10 or 11 years old, this might be my favourite film of all time (for a few months). The 10 year old trapped inside me kinda thinks it is! At first I was sceptical that it could be any good at all, seeing it getting nominated in a lot of best animation categories during award season, and then winning them all! From the poster, or even the trailer, alone, I just didn’t get it!
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
Then folk whose opinion I trust, that normally go for really intense dramas and artsy stuff, started telling me how good it was. I added it to my watchlist and walked away, nodding, as if to say “sure, I’ll get around to it”. More fool me for waiting so long, cos let me tell you, as modern animations go, it is really really good! But why? Well, there are several things that set it apart…
Firstly, it patronises no one. This is a fun, all swinging, all action, adventure, with real threat, real emotion and real excitement. Secondly, the love and attention that have gone into the myth of Spiderman and what he/she/it represents is so astonishingly comprehensive in a 2 hour film, that anyone living on Mars and never knowing a single thing about it, would understand instantly. You also don’t have to be a superhero geek to like it (but it helps a bit).
And thirdly, the animation. Wow, the animation! Incorporating so many styles and techniques, often in the same image / scene, it is a mind boggling experience, and a visual festival of comic book art. It shouldn’t work, but, my word, it not only works, it totally rocks! I have never felt before that I was experiencing a living, moving, comic book. Every detail makes you respect and appreciate this art form, and its evolution through the years.
Not only that, however, but it has an inclusivity that is awesome and so simple. This isn’t a film about boys, for boys. Gwen Stacy, aka Spider-Woman, is a great, strong character in her own right; as is Spider-Ham; as are all of them. Literally, there is something for everyone to relate to. And the cunning conceit that brings them all together just… works!
I’m not sure I’ll watch it very often, because, you know, I’m not 10 any more. But if I am ever in the mood to feel young and excited about heroes, then this will be my first port of call.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Carrie (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve got a taste for terror…take Carrie to the Prom.”
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Mastering Delphi
Book
Become a developer superhero and build stunning cross-platform apps with Delphi About This Book * A...
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020
Ever since Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel Studios have pretty much been on a hot streak. It's easy to forget that this titan of a movie house still had to finds its feet once upon a time, and unfortunately they do have a handful of underwhelming titles in their arsenal.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Feb 3, 2021
On the surface, you could argue that Doctor Strange isn't all that different from Iron Man in terms of structure. Rich, white dude with a goatee lives out his life, arrogantly full of himself until a life altering incident forces him to fight to survive, setting him on a path of betterment and redemption. Whilst this is unarguably true, the fact is that this movie is so much more than retreading familiar ground. Gone are the times where superhero movies play it safe. Guardians of the Galaxy may have knocked down the doors, but Doctor Strange takes the cosmic concept, and runs full speed with it. Marvel Studios have got to the point where they can make a movie about the Dark Dimension, the Mirror Dimension, the Sorcerer Supreme, Dormammu, the multiverse, and audiences will still lap it up, and I'm here for it.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Sinister director Scott Derrickson proves to be a smart choice, as he provides us a story that's humourous, full of heart, brimming with new lore, and is visually mind bending. The aesthetic if this movie is what sets it apart from its kin. Sure it doesn't stray too far from the Marvel formula, but it does something different. Many have compared it to Inception, which isn't an unfair note, and it makes for some wonderful looking set pieces.
Benedict Cumberbatch is picture perfect as Stephen Strange himself and is joined by a stellar supporting cast. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tilda Swinton, Mads Mikkelsen, Benedict Wong, and Rachel McAdams are all great in their respective roles. Mikkelsen gives us a compelling villain in Kaecilius, jaded by an order he's followed for years and turning tail to pursue what he thinks is right (not to dissimilar to Thanos in that respect). We're also introduced briefly to Dormammu, which is certainly exciting to any fans of the comics. With the Infinity Saga all wrapped up, this could prove to be seed planting for a future big bad.
Doctor Strange could have easily just been another run of the mill origin story (which some believe it is, and that's ok!) but for me, it's so much more. It manages to build on Marvel lore, whilst teasing future story lines by flirting with the Multiverse and the Dark Dimension, all while never losing focus on its very human story. It's a fantastic first outing for one of Marvel's more out there characters and one of my favourites of the whole franchise.
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Maddog (122 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
May 16, 2020
A must see, even if your not a superhero fan.
I'm a massive Joker fan - always have been ever since I was little, so this may be a little one sided.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.
So out of all the films he's been involved with this is Joker’s first stand alone movie which I was so excited for. Joker’s back story has of course been talked about for many years as most of his life is unknown and simply everyone is guessing. The film 'Joker' decides to go down the back story of mental health which many believe is the cause of his behaviour.
The film starts off very simple, so much so that you believe you could be watching any other film. You get little hints of the Joker’s mental health issues and how people see him (at one point I felt sorry for him because of everything happening in the movie). As the movie progresses your then thrown into the world and mindset of the Joker himself; you start to see more mental health issues and start to notice the Joker that everyone knows. As the film progresses towards to the end, it creates many moments that leave you questioning your own sanity as you start to wonder what the truth is.
Yes this film has it flaws; it wasn’t quite the stand alone I was hoping for as I thought maybe a lesser well known reason would have been chosen but still the film did well with its chosen plot.
Yes it has 'that song' but in reality I feel it actually helps with the story that's happening. Here's my take; I feel that the song is in fact a hidden message. The song was performed by someone many would call 'a monster' so in truth is this not fitting for Joker? I believe that the playing of this song is Joker showing the audience in only true Joker fashion that 'the monster' he has hidden for so long is finally free.
There are many things I could say about this film but I feel I'd be here forever. In truth, many people don't enjoy this film for whatever their reason, or only enjoy parts. However, I enjoyed all of the film and everything it stands for or represents. As I said at the beginning I'm a Joker fan so this may seem one sided. I will say this though no matter what you may think about the film it’s 100% worth a watch, we can all take something away from this film, even if it's just how well done the movie was made. put together and portrayed.