Search
Search results
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Disclosure (1994) in Movies
Apr 24, 2021
Power Play
Disclosure- is a good erotic thriller. Micheal Douglas, Demi Moore and Donald Sutherland are all good.
The plot: In this Michael Crichton adaptation, Tom Sanders (Michael Douglas) is a senior executive at a cutting-edge technology corporation on the verge of releasing an innovative new product. Sanders' boss, Bob Galvin (Donald Sutherland), is putting the final touches on a potentially lucrative merger and everything is in order for Tom until a vamp from his past, Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore), swoops in, stealing his impending promotion and then -- doubling down -- suing him for sexual harassment.
Like i said its good.
The plot: In this Michael Crichton adaptation, Tom Sanders (Michael Douglas) is a senior executive at a cutting-edge technology corporation on the verge of releasing an innovative new product. Sanders' boss, Bob Galvin (Donald Sutherland), is putting the final touches on a potentially lucrative merger and everything is in order for Tom until a vamp from his past, Meredith Johnson (Demi Moore), swoops in, stealing his impending promotion and then -- doubling down -- suing him for sexual harassment.
Like i said its good.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) in Movies
Apr 24, 2021
Lions Among Us
The Ghost and the Darkness- is a good film. Both Micheal Douglas and Val Klimer are good in it.
The plot: Sir Robert Beaumont (Tom Wilkinson) is behind schedule on a railroad in Africa. Enlisting noted engineer John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) to right the ship, Beaumont expects results. Everything seems great until the crew discovers the mutilated corpse of the project's foreman (Henry Cele), seemingly killed by a lion. After several more attacks, Patterson calls in famed hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas), who has finally met his match in the bloodthirsty lions.
Its a good film.
The plot: Sir Robert Beaumont (Tom Wilkinson) is behind schedule on a railroad in Africa. Enlisting noted engineer John Henry Patterson (Val Kilmer) to right the ship, Beaumont expects results. Everything seems great until the crew discovers the mutilated corpse of the project's foreman (Henry Cele), seemingly killed by a lion. After several more attacks, Patterson calls in famed hunter Charles Remington (Michael Douglas), who has finally met his match in the bloodthirsty lions.
Its a good film.
Ross (3284 KP) rated Good Omens in Books
Jun 12, 2019
Fun, charming romp towards the end of the world
Good Omens is a strange one. If you're a fan of Pratchett's Discworld, I can see you not being overly keen on this book (while his trademark humour is there and his funny Billy Connolly-esque tangents are in the footnotes, there is less of the fantastic about it). And likewise Gaiman fans might be missing his usual gothic flair and be somewhat alarmed at the amount of silliness in the book.
This is probably what put me off reading this until now. I seem to recall trying to read it about 20 years ago, but for some reason I gave up inside a couple of pages. That was 17 year old me as a Pratchett fan, and I must have opted for the 20+ Discworld books I still had yet to read instead, and had no idea who Neil Gaiman was.
Sadly, that makes me your common or garden bandwagon-jumper as I have only now read this for the first time with the TV series on my to-be-watched list.
I cannot say why I never returned to the book. I love Pratchett, had the honour of meeting him at signings a few times in the 90s, and he got me into Robert Rankin, Douglas Adams, Tom Holt and Tom Sharpe. This book is so in line with the flavour of the books I have enjoyed most in my life that it beggars belief I never gave it another thought.
I am so glad I eventually did, and did so before watching the TV series.
While there are epic expectations of the quality of the book, from the hype and cult status, I always read with an open mind.
The story underlying the book is a Fawlty Towers-esque attempt at the end of days, where one bumbling fool's error in the early stages completely changes the plans for the end of the human race.
I won't go into the plot in detail, and will only say that the read is a thoroughly enjoyable ride. It isn't laugh-out-loud funny, it is smirk-I-know-what-you-mean funny. This may not appeal to non-British readers as much as it is written with a very British sense of humour. It is very silly quite a lot of the time, but there is a good, deep story in there if you take a moment to think about it.
My only criticism would be that there was a little too much silliness and while enjoyable this may have distracted from the book at times. But you know you'll get that with Pratchett, he takes his little tangents and he adds in nonsense dialogues for sheer entertainment value - he very much sees that not every word has to be vital to the overall story, you can have a little fun along the way.
Now, to get into the TV series ....
This is probably what put me off reading this until now. I seem to recall trying to read it about 20 years ago, but for some reason I gave up inside a couple of pages. That was 17 year old me as a Pratchett fan, and I must have opted for the 20+ Discworld books I still had yet to read instead, and had no idea who Neil Gaiman was.
Sadly, that makes me your common or garden bandwagon-jumper as I have only now read this for the first time with the TV series on my to-be-watched list.
I cannot say why I never returned to the book. I love Pratchett, had the honour of meeting him at signings a few times in the 90s, and he got me into Robert Rankin, Douglas Adams, Tom Holt and Tom Sharpe. This book is so in line with the flavour of the books I have enjoyed most in my life that it beggars belief I never gave it another thought.
I am so glad I eventually did, and did so before watching the TV series.
While there are epic expectations of the quality of the book, from the hype and cult status, I always read with an open mind.
The story underlying the book is a Fawlty Towers-esque attempt at the end of days, where one bumbling fool's error in the early stages completely changes the plans for the end of the human race.
I won't go into the plot in detail, and will only say that the read is a thoroughly enjoyable ride. It isn't laugh-out-loud funny, it is smirk-I-know-what-you-mean funny. This may not appeal to non-British readers as much as it is written with a very British sense of humour. It is very silly quite a lot of the time, but there is a good, deep story in there if you take a moment to think about it.
My only criticism would be that there was a little too much silliness and while enjoyable this may have distracted from the book at times. But you know you'll get that with Pratchett, he takes his little tangents and he adds in nonsense dialogues for sheer entertainment value - he very much sees that not every word has to be vital to the overall story, you can have a little fun along the way.
Now, to get into the TV series ....
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Feb 1, 2019
Almost a good movie
One of my favorite films of 2018 is A QUIET PLACE where aliens with extreme hearing can get you if you make a noise. It is a quite interesting and well made film (with a bravura performance by Emily Blunt), so when I heard there was a variant of this theme (this time you can't use your eyes), I decided to check it out and to see if Sandra Bullock could pull off the same sort of bravura performance as Blunt.
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, that's too bad, for by comparison the Netflix flick BIRD BOX is no A QUIET PLACE, but if I don't try to compare it to A QUIET PLACE, BIRD BOX is a very entertaining film, indeed.
The story follows Bullock as Malorie a pregnant single woman who holds no "maternal instinct" towards her unborn child. Malorie is devoid of emotion and compassion and is dreading the day that her child will be born. Enter into this an "end of world event" where unseen aliens show up and, if you look at them, you go insane and try to commit suicide. Amidst this chaos, Malorie and a ragtag assortment of survivors find shelter in the house of Douglas (John Malkovich). Can this disparate group of strangers find a way to survive in this insane new world?
Well...the fun in this kind of movie is in the characters trapped together and the "10 Little Indians" style of demise as the house guests are picked off one by one by the aliens (or each other). It is the drama of these trapped individuals, and the surprise and the ingenuity of how they are killed off that makes or breaks these types of films.
And in this way, this film succeeds very well for besides Bullock and Malkovich, the housemates are filled with (for the most part) a strong grouping of actors led, most notably, by Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHT) and Jacki Weaver (ANIMAL KINGDOM). They are strong presences in this household and are interesting to watch. Good ol' B.D. Wong (JURASSIC PARK among many, many credits) brings his usual, solid game and Lil Rey Howery (GET OUT) brings much needed energy and humor to the proceedings. Add to this the usual, creepy Tom Hollander (IN THE LOOP) as a mysterious houseguest who is...creepy...and there is enough going on to keep my interest.
Add to this the always intriguing work of Malkovich as the paranoid, "me first" homeowner and Bullock underplaying her emotions as a counterbalance to Malkovich overplaying his emotions and the scenes in the house were interesting and (at times) gripping.
The problem I have with this film is that it inter cuts these scenes with scenes of Bullock (and a few other survivors from the house) "5 years later" - so, you already know who makes it and who doesn't - which takes away the tension of the house scenes. It also has an ending that, quite frankly, I saw coming a mile off and so it was not a satisfying conclusion to the proceedings for the ending was uneventful and unsurprising. A poor way to end this sort of film.
Don't get me wrong, the scenes in the house of the initial group of survivors is well worth viewing this film, I just wish Director Susanne Bier (THE NIGHT MANAGER) didn't dilute these scenes by bringing us forward in time too soon. I wonder how much better this film could have been had we just watched the events of the film (including all of the "5 years later scenes") in chronological order, I gotta think it would have been a better film.
This is, by every definition of the term, a "B" film, perfect for a snow, rain or cold-bound afternoon at home.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
The final curtain.
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)