Search
Search results
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.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Superman: Action Comics - The Oz Effect in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I passed on "The Oz Effect" when it first ran in ACTION COMICS back in 2017. The whole "Rebirth" thing intrigued me, but some of the stuff like the Flash/Batman crossover "The Button", just left me cold and bordering on disinterest. When I saw the identity reveal as to the story arc's antagonist, I felt frustrated and disappointing, feeling like "#Facepalm Didn't we do something like this already?!".
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Since re-discovering my love of Superman (my earliest recollections of the character were one of love and admiration, because he was just so darned GOOD, y'know?) during Bendis taking the reins, I figured reading this book would aid me in what was to come. Catching it on a recent Comixology sale for the Big 'S' was the icing on the cake!
The first story in book, the two-issue story "Only Human", written by Rob Williams, was just meh. It felt like "paint by number", as far as the plot was concerned. Nothing in it made me go, "Whoa! Holy crapola, that was fab!" Nope.
The only reason it was included was due to the inclusion, and overall influence, of Mr. Oz on the story. Outside of that, I saw no reason to include it, other than DC wanted to add more pages (good, bad, or otherwise) for the money spent on purchasing it!
Now, the art by Guillem March was another story altogether. I felt he did a great job of capturing the heroic aspects to Superman, as well as the "human" side, achieving a perfect balance. I also thought the way he drew Lois Lane was also perfect, making her appear to be smart, because, well, she is, right? 'Nuff said. Thank you. Guillem, for helping to make this a 3-Star review instead of just a 2-Star one!
As far as the remainder of the book, which WAS "The Oz Effect, I thought it was fair. Not terrible by any means, but certainly not the kind of Dan Jurgens' helmed story. I felt the dialogue involving Clark and Jon, as well as with Lois, was good, as was the way he handled Perry White. But the reveal for Mr. Oz (no Spoilers, promise!) was just a bit underwhelming!
The character who he really has been done before. Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. This round, I was just like "Hmmm.. Ok, didn't see it coming, but at the same time.." I think a lot of people, myself included, were hoping it would be WATCHMEN's Ozmandyias. *womp* *womp* Nope. And that, dear readers, is the only kinda-sorta Spoiler in this review!
What really made it work for me, as well as aiding that push for the 3-Star review, was the backstory. Even though <i>his name</i> (not gonna say it, but we all know the blue fellow in question) is not mentioned, it is clear who is behind all of this. The fact that he brought this person into the present, tweaking the grand scheme of Everything? Whew! That's heavy! And definitely interest enough for me to stay onboard with Supes, especially with care Bendis is exhibiting with the character as well as the book's main cast.
This was my first time with Viktor Bogdanovic's art style. Quite good, I'd say. He really does a great job at capturing character's emotions, really drawing you into what is going on in that particular panel. Definitely someone I will be looking out for going forward.
So, final verdict, do I recommend this? Yeah, because there's a lot of little bits that owe to the bigger story involving <i>him</i>. However, don't expect to have your mind blown or anything, because it really ain't gonna do that. But, it's good enough to read.
And that, dear readers, is all I have to say about it!
I will be curious to finally read Geoff Johns' DOOMSDAY CLOCK (hopefully, it will conclude in my lifetime!) as I feel a lot more will make sense.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Rocketeer (1991) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018
Hated it
Me trying to find something I liked about The Rocketeer: "Well that part was cool. Yeah, but it was quickly ruined by x,y, and z. Besides, the terrible part that happened right after made it all for nothing. Ok, but what about...Nope, that was pretty crappy too."
If Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice has taught us anything it's that sometimes superhero movies get it wrong. Not only does The Rocketeer get it wrong, it steps on its own feet before it can even get off the blocks properly. Oftentimes we have the case of decent actors getting placed with a dud of a script, but that's far from the situation here. Sure the actors didn't have much of a chance with the awful writing, but I have the strangest feeling that even if the writing had been superb these actors still would have found a way to muck it up. It's that bad. I'm talking grind your teeth bad.
To its credit, the film doesn't dupe you as it gets off to a terrible start almost immediately. Twenty minutes in and I was already thinking of the number of different things that I could have been doing rather than watching The Rocketeeer. Was it all bad? No, but mostly. The redeemable parts were quickly ruined by their own contradictions. Perfect example, everytime main character Cliff Secord (Billy Campbell) donned the Rocketeer suit, the action was pretty sweet to watch. Considering the fact that he wasn't in the suit for even a full half hour, things soured pretty quickly.
Corny moments abound in the film. I was hoping for a base that was more serious and less campy and all I can say is: Mission Not Accomplished. Between the absolute joke of a villain, the lame plot twist, and a number of other things, I don't know what bothered me the most.
The Rocketeer is the story of an aviator who is on the run from the mob after discovering a jet pack in the 1930's. Yeah, now that I think about it, the plot should have told me everything I needed to know about expectations. Skip it. I give it a 10.
If Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice has taught us anything it's that sometimes superhero movies get it wrong. Not only does The Rocketeer get it wrong, it steps on its own feet before it can even get off the blocks properly. Oftentimes we have the case of decent actors getting placed with a dud of a script, but that's far from the situation here. Sure the actors didn't have much of a chance with the awful writing, but I have the strangest feeling that even if the writing had been superb these actors still would have found a way to muck it up. It's that bad. I'm talking grind your teeth bad.
To its credit, the film doesn't dupe you as it gets off to a terrible start almost immediately. Twenty minutes in and I was already thinking of the number of different things that I could have been doing rather than watching The Rocketeeer. Was it all bad? No, but mostly. The redeemable parts were quickly ruined by their own contradictions. Perfect example, everytime main character Cliff Secord (Billy Campbell) donned the Rocketeer suit, the action was pretty sweet to watch. Considering the fact that he wasn't in the suit for even a full half hour, things soured pretty quickly.
Corny moments abound in the film. I was hoping for a base that was more serious and less campy and all I can say is: Mission Not Accomplished. Between the absolute joke of a villain, the lame plot twist, and a number of other things, I don't know what bothered me the most.
The Rocketeer is the story of an aviator who is on the run from the mob after discovering a jet pack in the 1930's. Yeah, now that I think about it, the plot should have told me everything I needed to know about expectations. Skip it. I give it a 10.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jul 16, 2019 (Updated Sep 1, 2019)
An average DC entry saved by its own absurdity
I found that Aquaman is a movie of three distinct parts.
It actually starts off pretty strongly, as we're introduced to all the players involved, and all of the important locations.
Jason Mamoa is a very likeable guy, but it takes a while to warm to his gym bro approach Arthur Curry, but he managed to win me over eventually, the charming hairy bastard.
Patrick Wilson is pretty good as Ocean Master, and it's nice to see veterans like Willem Defoe and Nicole Kidman (who gets an early and very brief action scene which I reckon trumps anything in Batman vs Superman).
The story set up is all fine and straightforward, and some of the visuals are pretty impressive, especially sweeping shots of Atlantis.
When the story heads back to land at the mid point is where the films takes a bit of a nosedive.
It all just becomes a bit...boring.
It also falls into the weird "play-a-cool-song-at-random-intervals" trap that Suicide Squad enjoyed flogging to death. (Whoever decided to put that God awful hip hop cover of Africa in the mix deserves a slap)
I also feel that Black Manta was sort of wasted here. He's sidelined to make room for other story lines, which I guess is fine if he's being set up for a bigger role in future installments, but here he just feels kind of tacked on.
The last act of the film is a CGI orgy, but it stands apart from a lot of films in the genre, as it's actually colourful! The sheer scope of the last battle is absolutely absurd, so absurd that it kind of works.
The CGI in question is pretty hit and miss throughout the film - sometimes it looks horrific (young Willem Defoe is haunting) and other times, it's pretty flawless, making for some pretty good action shots.
Overall, for me, the DCEU is still struggling to leave it's mark, but Aquaman and this years Shazam seem like a small step in the right direction.
It actually starts off pretty strongly, as we're introduced to all the players involved, and all of the important locations.
Jason Mamoa is a very likeable guy, but it takes a while to warm to his gym bro approach Arthur Curry, but he managed to win me over eventually, the charming hairy bastard.
Patrick Wilson is pretty good as Ocean Master, and it's nice to see veterans like Willem Defoe and Nicole Kidman (who gets an early and very brief action scene which I reckon trumps anything in Batman vs Superman).
The story set up is all fine and straightforward, and some of the visuals are pretty impressive, especially sweeping shots of Atlantis.
When the story heads back to land at the mid point is where the films takes a bit of a nosedive.
It all just becomes a bit...boring.
It also falls into the weird "play-a-cool-song-at-random-intervals" trap that Suicide Squad enjoyed flogging to death. (Whoever decided to put that God awful hip hop cover of Africa in the mix deserves a slap)
I also feel that Black Manta was sort of wasted here. He's sidelined to make room for other story lines, which I guess is fine if he's being set up for a bigger role in future installments, but here he just feels kind of tacked on.
The last act of the film is a CGI orgy, but it stands apart from a lot of films in the genre, as it's actually colourful! The sheer scope of the last battle is absolutely absurd, so absurd that it kind of works.
The CGI in question is pretty hit and miss throughout the film - sometimes it looks horrific (young Willem Defoe is haunting) and other times, it's pretty flawless, making for some pretty good action shots.
Overall, for me, the DCEU is still struggling to leave it's mark, but Aquaman and this years Shazam seem like a small step in the right direction.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated DC League of Super Pets (2022) in Movies
Aug 2, 2022
I had hoped for something lighthearted and amusing, I definitely didn't expect what I got.
When the safety of Superman, and the world, is threatened by a bald supervillain, Krypto must step in to save the day. Ordinarily, that would be easy, but not today, today he's going to need some help.
You've got to love the classic tail tale of man's best friend. Add in some superpowers and you're really on to something, the whole family well covered. Friendship, loss, insecurity, lots of lessons for the kids, and a surprising amount of bleeped dialogue and jokes for the adults.
Each Super-Pet goes through their own little journey, and though most of the interactions are between the pets, or between the humans, when the two crossover it's handled really well. The simple transition from Kate McKinnon waxing lyrical about villainy, to guinea pig squeaks is surprisingly hilarious.
You can't really find fault with the voice cast. Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart are always wonderful together, and I can honestly visualise them doing some of the recording together with the physical acting. McKinnon's villainy is second to none, and her reactions to scenes... *chef's kiss*.
But can we talk about Keanu? Who has started the petition for him to play IRL Batman? We need it.
The animation is simple, that's not meant in a negative way. It feels very much in line with graphic novels, there's great attention to detail, but it doesn't distract from what's in the foreground. The expressions, the human/pet interactions, every reaction is captured perfectly. Just watch for the ear bouncing and tail twitching if you don't believe me!
I went in hoping for something amusing, I came out having seen one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. If it had songs I may have bumped it up above Teen Titans GO! To The Movies... but also, they play no crystals. So it's a very close second place.
Oh, and, just saying... if they wanted to scrap everything live action in the DCEU, animate it, and add Super-Pets... I wouldn't be mad.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/dc-league-of-super-pets-movie-review.html
When the safety of Superman, and the world, is threatened by a bald supervillain, Krypto must step in to save the day. Ordinarily, that would be easy, but not today, today he's going to need some help.
You've got to love the classic tail tale of man's best friend. Add in some superpowers and you're really on to something, the whole family well covered. Friendship, loss, insecurity, lots of lessons for the kids, and a surprising amount of bleeped dialogue and jokes for the adults.
Each Super-Pet goes through their own little journey, and though most of the interactions are between the pets, or between the humans, when the two crossover it's handled really well. The simple transition from Kate McKinnon waxing lyrical about villainy, to guinea pig squeaks is surprisingly hilarious.
You can't really find fault with the voice cast. Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart are always wonderful together, and I can honestly visualise them doing some of the recording together with the physical acting. McKinnon's villainy is second to none, and her reactions to scenes... *chef's kiss*.
But can we talk about Keanu? Who has started the petition for him to play IRL Batman? We need it.
The animation is simple, that's not meant in a negative way. It feels very much in line with graphic novels, there's great attention to detail, but it doesn't distract from what's in the foreground. The expressions, the human/pet interactions, every reaction is captured perfectly. Just watch for the ear bouncing and tail twitching if you don't believe me!
I went in hoping for something amusing, I came out having seen one of the best superhero movies I've ever seen. If it had songs I may have bumped it up above Teen Titans GO! To The Movies... but also, they play no crystals. So it's a very close second place.
Oh, and, just saying... if they wanted to scrap everything live action in the DCEU, animate it, and add Super-Pets... I wouldn't be mad.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/07/dc-league-of-super-pets-movie-review.html
TacoDave (3532 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019 (Updated Apr 10, 2019)
Special Effects (1 more)
90's Setting
Acting (2 more)
Story
Overt Politicalization
Captain "Meh"vel.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I finally saw Captain Marvel, just a few weeks after the rest of the world. It has already made over $1 billion, so I know I'm late to the game.
What can I say that hasn't already been said? It's a serviceable Marvel movie. It ranks up there with Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World as well-made, enjoyable, yet forgettable superhero fare. At the end I realized it doesn't really explain anything and doesn't really amount to much except a mouthpiece for feminists raging against toxic masculinity and a cry to help refugees, and that's disappointing.
What are Captain Marvel's powers? It never really explains. She shoots energy beams. She learns to fly, somehow. And apparently she can breathe in space (?). But how or why or what the limits of her powers are is never discussed.
Neither are weaknesses. Superman has kryptonite. Batman and Iron Man are humans using technology to help them, but can be killed. Even Vision died without his infinity stone. But apparently Captain Marvel is just such a kick-ass woman that she can't be hurt. The film seems to suggest that her only weakness is her lack of self-empowerment.
And while I don't mind a movie having a political bent, everything in this movie that is trying to promote a social message is too on-the-nose, too in-your-face to work. "I'm Just a Girl" plays while she beats people up. A man says she should smile. A pilot says "You know why it's called the COCKpit, right?" Ninety percent of the music features a female singer (the only one I noticed that didn't was Nirvana's "Come As You Are"). It's just ... too much. Or too blatant. It kept pulling me out of the movie, as if the director(s) were seated next to me, poking me in the arm, saying "See what we did there? Subtext!"
One of the aliens even refers to earth as a sh!t-hole, a clear, obvious reference to Donald Trump.
So that's Captain Marvel. 10% muddled action, 30% jokes (mostly funny), 5% story, and 55% political message. Oh, and 127% GURL POWER.
I enjoyed it as a prelude to Avengers: Endgame, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
What can I say that hasn't already been said? It's a serviceable Marvel movie. It ranks up there with Iron Man 2 and Thor: The Dark World as well-made, enjoyable, yet forgettable superhero fare. At the end I realized it doesn't really explain anything and doesn't really amount to much except a mouthpiece for feminists raging against toxic masculinity and a cry to help refugees, and that's disappointing.
What are Captain Marvel's powers? It never really explains. She shoots energy beams. She learns to fly, somehow. And apparently she can breathe in space (?). But how or why or what the limits of her powers are is never discussed.
Neither are weaknesses. Superman has kryptonite. Batman and Iron Man are humans using technology to help them, but can be killed. Even Vision died without his infinity stone. But apparently Captain Marvel is just such a kick-ass woman that she can't be hurt. The film seems to suggest that her only weakness is her lack of self-empowerment.
And while I don't mind a movie having a political bent, everything in this movie that is trying to promote a social message is too on-the-nose, too in-your-face to work. "I'm Just a Girl" plays while she beats people up. A man says she should smile. A pilot says "You know why it's called the COCKpit, right?" Ninety percent of the music features a female singer (the only one I noticed that didn't was Nirvana's "Come As You Are"). It's just ... too much. Or too blatant. It kept pulling me out of the movie, as if the director(s) were seated next to me, poking me in the arm, saying "See what we did there? Subtext!"
One of the aliens even refers to earth as a sh!t-hole, a clear, obvious reference to Donald Trump.
So that's Captain Marvel. 10% muddled action, 30% jokes (mostly funny), 5% story, and 55% political message. Oh, and 127% GURL POWER.
I enjoyed it as a prelude to Avengers: Endgame, but I don't think I'll ever watch it again.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
May 14, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll say from the outset, I'm a lifelong comic book fan. During my teenage years back in the 80's I collected John Ostrander's Suicide Squad title and absolutely loved it. It was always a given for me therefore that I would jump at the prospect of a movie based on my favourite title.
You know the synopsis I'm guessing (if you're reading this review) - government official Amanda Waller assembles a group of the baddest incarcerated criminals to go up against the potential of a metahuman crisis should the 'next' Superman not share our values. This is deemed more relevant following the demise of the man of steel himself at the climax of Dawn Of Justice. Amongst those villains are Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), and Enchantress/Dr June Moone (Carla Delevigne). Heading up the group is Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), albeit reluctantly.
The story essentially revolves around Enchantress going rogue and converting a subway station in Midway City into a warzone as she resurrects her brother Incubus and the two attempt to destroy the world. The only criticism I have with the movie concerns the simplicity within which Enchantress 'turns' on the group shortly after it is her actions that cause the senate committee to approve the founding of Task Force X only a couple of scenes earlier in the movie. It just feels a bit rushed. It's also interesting to note that the events of the movie would never have taken place had Waller not established her little 'pet project' to begin with!
The dialogue is witty and sharp and the characters are highly likeable (despite them being arch-villains and - in some cases, murderers). Will Smith is the core of the group as Deadshot and his cold-bloodedness as an assassin is softened by the connection he has to his daughter (how the audience is expected no doubt to warm to him?). Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flagg is also key to the story's heart with his flawed relationship with Dr June Moone - Enchantress's alter ego. Margot Robbie is superb as Harley Quinn although at times it seems as if her rear's the star of the show.
What do I need to say about Jared Leto that hasn't been said before? You'll either love or hate his portrayal of Mr.J!
You know the synopsis I'm guessing (if you're reading this review) - government official Amanda Waller assembles a group of the baddest incarcerated criminals to go up against the potential of a metahuman crisis should the 'next' Superman not share our values. This is deemed more relevant following the demise of the man of steel himself at the climax of Dawn Of Justice. Amongst those villains are Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), El Diablo (Jay Hernandez), and Enchantress/Dr June Moone (Carla Delevigne). Heading up the group is Colonel Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), albeit reluctantly.
The story essentially revolves around Enchantress going rogue and converting a subway station in Midway City into a warzone as she resurrects her brother Incubus and the two attempt to destroy the world. The only criticism I have with the movie concerns the simplicity within which Enchantress 'turns' on the group shortly after it is her actions that cause the senate committee to approve the founding of Task Force X only a couple of scenes earlier in the movie. It just feels a bit rushed. It's also interesting to note that the events of the movie would never have taken place had Waller not established her little 'pet project' to begin with!
The dialogue is witty and sharp and the characters are highly likeable (despite them being arch-villains and - in some cases, murderers). Will Smith is the core of the group as Deadshot and his cold-bloodedness as an assassin is softened by the connection he has to his daughter (how the audience is expected no doubt to warm to him?). Joel Kinnaman's Rick Flagg is also key to the story's heart with his flawed relationship with Dr June Moone - Enchantress's alter ego. Margot Robbie is superb as Harley Quinn although at times it seems as if her rear's the star of the show.
What do I need to say about Jared Leto that hasn't been said before? You'll either love or hate his portrayal of Mr.J!
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Second Nature (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
So this movie couldn’t have found its place in the world at a more opportune time (What with Trump vs Hillary and all). A balls out funny as hell comedy about a woman who against all the Nay-Sayers is going to run for Mayor against a womanizing, no morals and for lack of a better word Ass-hole who thinks the job is already sewn up. Seems standard right?? Well no not really throw in a Magic Mirror and some Freaky Friday gender swapping and you have Second Nature.
Without jumping into Spoilers though, the Kicker is this… Its not our main characters who have swapped roles like in most of these movies. It is the world around them!!!
Set in the small town of Louisburg, a shall we say “Freak Accident” befalls the Mayor. Upon his death it becomes a race to the position between Amanda (Collette Wolf. Hot Tub Time Machine, Interstellar). Amanda has all the best intentions for the town. She wants to protect the citizens including her Grandmother. However she must first overcome her opponent Bret (Sam Huntington. Sully, Superman Returns and Fanboys) Bret thinks he has the whole thing sewn up, loved by all at the city council and a real ladies man. They get into a heated argument one night while Amanda is holding her Grandmas “Magic Mirror” and the roles of Men and Women are swapped leading for some pretty hilarious results. Which actually turns this into a somewhat Social statement at points.
First time Writer/Director Micheal Cross has brought an extremely well thought out and accomplished fresh take on the whole Gender/Body swap genre of movie in a way that I guess I was surprised by if I am honest. The movie has a great cast of characters that all have there moments to shine. A special mention to Carollani Sandberg who plays Amanda’s best friend Nat, she is hilarious in this movie . Wolfe and Huntington have a great chemistry and the laughs in this movie just keep on coming and at a cool 80 minutes it never has time to outstay its welcome. We at 365Flicks highly recommend this Movie, its a good time to be had.
Produced by Nicholas Gyeney under his Seattle-based production banner Mirror Images LTD (Beta Test, Matt’s Chance, The Penitent Man).
Without jumping into Spoilers though, the Kicker is this… Its not our main characters who have swapped roles like in most of these movies. It is the world around them!!!
Set in the small town of Louisburg, a shall we say “Freak Accident” befalls the Mayor. Upon his death it becomes a race to the position between Amanda (Collette Wolf. Hot Tub Time Machine, Interstellar). Amanda has all the best intentions for the town. She wants to protect the citizens including her Grandmother. However she must first overcome her opponent Bret (Sam Huntington. Sully, Superman Returns and Fanboys) Bret thinks he has the whole thing sewn up, loved by all at the city council and a real ladies man. They get into a heated argument one night while Amanda is holding her Grandmas “Magic Mirror” and the roles of Men and Women are swapped leading for some pretty hilarious results. Which actually turns this into a somewhat Social statement at points.
First time Writer/Director Micheal Cross has brought an extremely well thought out and accomplished fresh take on the whole Gender/Body swap genre of movie in a way that I guess I was surprised by if I am honest. The movie has a great cast of characters that all have there moments to shine. A special mention to Carollani Sandberg who plays Amanda’s best friend Nat, she is hilarious in this movie . Wolfe and Huntington have a great chemistry and the laughs in this movie just keep on coming and at a cool 80 minutes it never has time to outstay its welcome. We at 365Flicks highly recommend this Movie, its a good time to be had.
Produced by Nicholas Gyeney under his Seattle-based production banner Mirror Images LTD (Beta Test, Matt’s Chance, The Penitent Man).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I have to admit, I knew nothing about The Man from U.N.C.L.E going into the movie, other than it was based on a TV show from the 60’s. It had flown under my radar for most of the year, overshadowed by highly-anticipated titles with colons, i.e., Avengers: Age of Ultron, Mad Max: Fury Road, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. When the screener was scheduled I was actually tempted to assign it to another reviewer. Then I watched the trailer and saw Henry Cavill (Superman) was one of the stars. At the risk of sounding shallow, that changed my mind.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.
As we waited for the movie to start, the Man from U.N.C.L.E soundtrack played through the theater’s sound system, transporting me to a Mad Men mindset, which helped as the movie backdrop is set in the early 1960’s period of the Cold War. We’re introduced first to Napoleon Solo, a CIA agent Cavill plays with amusing James Bond suave with an old-time movie accent. (Officially, I believe it’s called a Transatlantic accent.) He’s paired with Armie Hammer’s Illya Kuryakin, a KGB agent on a joint mission to stop a mysterious international criminal organization. To accomplish that, they need the cooperation of Gaby Teller (Alicia Vikander), the abandoned daughter of a German scientist, who is their key to infiltrating the criminal organization.
As you can guess, all the spy movie cliches can be found in Man from U.N.C.L.E. from the debonair womanizing agent, menacing foreigners, the femme fatale, the elaborate schemes that are executed smoothly, explanatory monologues, convenient gadgets, et al – just a vintage low tech, high glam version of spy movies you may have seen of late.
I’m actually glad I went in without any expectations. Guy Ritchie turned a pretty simple, straightforward plot into an intricate,, slightly off-kilter caper, with touches of his trademark storytelling from various perspectives. I enjoyed the subtle vying for supremacy the uneasy truce between Solo and Illya created, and while he’s not as dashing as Cavill, Hammer had great chemistry with Vikander.
This year has been quite the year for spy movies. U.N.C.L.E. is not the action thriller that Mission Impossible is, it’s also far from the campy shocker that Kingsmen was, nor is it as outrageously funny as Spy, but as spy movies go, U.N.C.L.E fits smoothly and oddly comfortably in that fold.