Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bad Santa 2 (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The last time we heard from Willie Soke (Billy Bob Thornton) he was recovering in jail after being shot eight times. We catch up with him today in maybe worse shape. He is out of jail but finds himself unable to hold a job and drinking to extreme excess. Th only visitor he has is a delusional, simple minded and well intentioned Thurman Merman (Brett Kelly). On the verge of ending it all he receives an invitation from his old partner, Marcus Skidmore (Tony Cox), to make a big score by robbing a Chicago charity on Christmas Eve. Wary, mostly because Marcus double crossed and shot him on their last job, Willie decides he needs the money and it’s a chance to double cross Marcus. So, he takes the job and heads to Chicago. When he arrives, he finds that Marcus has not told him everything. The job was put together by his arch nemesis. Someone who is more vile, crude and despicable than he is…his mother Sunny (Kathy Bates). Driven by greed and with the agreement that Marcus and him will cut his mother out at the end of the job Willie agrees to go forward with the robbery. The unlikely trio set out to infiltrate and rob the charity.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
Curiosity Quills: Chronology
Richard Roberts, Tony Healey, Piers Anthony, J.R. Rain, Jordan Elizabeth Mierek, James Wymore, Stan Swanson, Darin Kennedy , Julie Frost , Andrew Buckley , J.P. Moynahan, B. C. Johnson, J. P. Sloan, Andrew J. Rausch, Katie Young , Scott Nicholson, Wilbert Stanton, Tara Tyler, Mark W. Woodring, J. E. Anckorn, Nathan L. Yocum, G. Miki Hayden, Matthew S. Cox and Matthew Graybosch
6.0
Rate It
Book
It's time... for time! Embark on a literary journey through the ages with Curiosity Quills Press in...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Frayed (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Many aspiring filmmakers spend years looking for their big break, a chance to show their talents to the world and to be given an opportunity to make a living doing the work that they love.
Sadly in such a competitive field, many struggle to be given that shot, and never get a chance to see their dreams reach fruition. Thanks to Screamfest, (www.screamfest.com) independent horror film makers are given their chance to submit their works to be included in an annual competition.
The competition screens films for fans and judges, and awards prizes to the top films of the competition. This is ideal for filmmakers as not only do they get publicity and an audience for their work, but a chance at a distribution deal and future work.
This year a local Washington State based company (lock It Entertainment) called has seen the culmination of years of work realized as their film “Frayed” has been accepted into the competition and stands out as one of the most promising films of the competition.
The film is set in a small town in Washington State where a small boy named Kurt brutally kills his mother and is confined to a mental institution. It is learned that Kurt is trapped in his mind and that he may not ever be able to return to normalcy.
The film then moves to the present day where Kurt is scheduled to be transferred to a facility that is better suited to his condition, as he has grown beyond any help. His father, the local Sheriff, Pat Baker, (Tony Doupe’), is struggling with the decision as he knows that it is the right thing to do, but finds it hard to sign his son away to the care of another institution.
At home, Sheriff Baker returns to find his daughter Sara (Alena Dashiell), on her way to a camping trip and his new wife Jolene (Kellee Bradley) frustrated over the boundaries that Sara and her friends have.
As if his day could not get any worse, Sheriff Baker learns that Kurt has escaped during his move, and is leaving a trail of carnage in his wake.
Torn between his loyalty to his son and his duty to protect the community, Sheriff Baker mounts a manhunt to capture Kurt unaware that a security officer from the hospital named Gary (Aaron Blakely), is in hot pursuit of Kurt and is witness to his deadly brutality firsthand.
What follows is a tension filled race against time where all of the central characters are caught up in an intertwining web of terror.
The film is surprisingly effective as at first I thought I was in for a “Halloween” style film of the psycho killer on the loose. Instead the film cleverly mixes the slasher film genre with ample amounts of drama and psychological drama.
Norb Caoili and Rob Portmann who co-wrote, co-directed, and co-produced the film along with Executive Producer and co-writer KurtSvennungsen, have made an entertaining film that packs plenty of horror staples along with some effective twists and turns that makes “Frayed” a surprisingly original and effective thriller.
Sadly in such a competitive field, many struggle to be given that shot, and never get a chance to see their dreams reach fruition. Thanks to Screamfest, (www.screamfest.com) independent horror film makers are given their chance to submit their works to be included in an annual competition.
The competition screens films for fans and judges, and awards prizes to the top films of the competition. This is ideal for filmmakers as not only do they get publicity and an audience for their work, but a chance at a distribution deal and future work.
This year a local Washington State based company (lock It Entertainment) called has seen the culmination of years of work realized as their film “Frayed” has been accepted into the competition and stands out as one of the most promising films of the competition.
The film is set in a small town in Washington State where a small boy named Kurt brutally kills his mother and is confined to a mental institution. It is learned that Kurt is trapped in his mind and that he may not ever be able to return to normalcy.
The film then moves to the present day where Kurt is scheduled to be transferred to a facility that is better suited to his condition, as he has grown beyond any help. His father, the local Sheriff, Pat Baker, (Tony Doupe’), is struggling with the decision as he knows that it is the right thing to do, but finds it hard to sign his son away to the care of another institution.
At home, Sheriff Baker returns to find his daughter Sara (Alena Dashiell), on her way to a camping trip and his new wife Jolene (Kellee Bradley) frustrated over the boundaries that Sara and her friends have.
As if his day could not get any worse, Sheriff Baker learns that Kurt has escaped during his move, and is leaving a trail of carnage in his wake.
Torn between his loyalty to his son and his duty to protect the community, Sheriff Baker mounts a manhunt to capture Kurt unaware that a security officer from the hospital named Gary (Aaron Blakely), is in hot pursuit of Kurt and is witness to his deadly brutality firsthand.
What follows is a tension filled race against time where all of the central characters are caught up in an intertwining web of terror.
The film is surprisingly effective as at first I thought I was in for a “Halloween” style film of the psycho killer on the loose. Instead the film cleverly mixes the slasher film genre with ample amounts of drama and psychological drama.
Norb Caoili and Rob Portmann who co-wrote, co-directed, and co-produced the film along with Executive Producer and co-writer KurtSvennungsen, have made an entertaining film that packs plenty of horror staples along with some effective twists and turns that makes “Frayed” a surprisingly original and effective thriller.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated The Mind in Tabletop Games
Nov 26, 2019
What IS a game? That’s a question that had never crossed my stream of consciousness until The Mind was released. And even then, I just sat idly by, snacking on my popcorn, watching all definitions and sides emerge in the great debate. So what’s the verdict? That’s ultimately up to you.
The Mind is a card game in which the players are trying to play their cards in ascending numerical order. That’s it. No, seriously. The ONLY catch is that players are not allowed to communicate in any way which cards they hold in their hands. No talking, no noises, and no gesturing of any kind. That’s how they getcha. Here’s how it works – at Level 1 (start of the game), each player is dealt one card. When the level officially begins, you must decide when is the right time to play your card. If the cards are played in order, then you move to Level 2 and receive 2 cards to start the round. Level 3 gives you 3 cards, and so on. Players win the game if they successfully complete a certain number of Levels.
I’m not here to comment on the “Is The Mind a game or not” debate, I’m just here to let you know our thoughts! The Mind is definitely an interesting experience, to say the least. A game that often begins timidly usually turns into a high-energy (and sometimes high-stress) atmosphere of fun. Although it might feel like pure luck, or even hidden telepathic connections, The Mind is ultimately a game of timing. The subtitle says it all – “Let’s become one…” Can you and your friends synchronize your timing well enough to make progress? Or will there be someone amongst the group who inadvertently throws off the groove?
Is The Mind my favorite game? No. But it’s one that I enjoy playing. I think it’s a unique game that keeps everyone on their toes, despite its appearance of simplicity. One thing I really enjoy is playing The Mind several times with the same group of people. It’s neat to see how the group learns the nuances of how everyone plays, and keeping that flow going between games and sessions. I also enjoy playing The Mind with a totally new group of people too for the same reason – everyone has a different play style and you’ve got to be able to learn and adapt to any given player.
The hardest rule is perhaps the one that makes the game most interesting, and that is the no communication rule. Admittedly, I do sometimes accidentally throw up a gesture or two to signal to other players, but even those are sometimes hilariously misunderstood and lead to some close calls or devastating defeats.
Overall, I think The Mind is a pretty neat game. It’s not one that I play too often, but it’s one that is simple enough to teach and play that I like playing it with newer gamers. The Mind plays fairly quickly too, so that makes it a good filler between some heavier games. Purple Phoenix Games (with input from guest score Tony) gives The Mind a thoughtful 14 / 24.
The Mind is a card game in which the players are trying to play their cards in ascending numerical order. That’s it. No, seriously. The ONLY catch is that players are not allowed to communicate in any way which cards they hold in their hands. No talking, no noises, and no gesturing of any kind. That’s how they getcha. Here’s how it works – at Level 1 (start of the game), each player is dealt one card. When the level officially begins, you must decide when is the right time to play your card. If the cards are played in order, then you move to Level 2 and receive 2 cards to start the round. Level 3 gives you 3 cards, and so on. Players win the game if they successfully complete a certain number of Levels.
I’m not here to comment on the “Is The Mind a game or not” debate, I’m just here to let you know our thoughts! The Mind is definitely an interesting experience, to say the least. A game that often begins timidly usually turns into a high-energy (and sometimes high-stress) atmosphere of fun. Although it might feel like pure luck, or even hidden telepathic connections, The Mind is ultimately a game of timing. The subtitle says it all – “Let’s become one…” Can you and your friends synchronize your timing well enough to make progress? Or will there be someone amongst the group who inadvertently throws off the groove?
Is The Mind my favorite game? No. But it’s one that I enjoy playing. I think it’s a unique game that keeps everyone on their toes, despite its appearance of simplicity. One thing I really enjoy is playing The Mind several times with the same group of people. It’s neat to see how the group learns the nuances of how everyone plays, and keeping that flow going between games and sessions. I also enjoy playing The Mind with a totally new group of people too for the same reason – everyone has a different play style and you’ve got to be able to learn and adapt to any given player.
The hardest rule is perhaps the one that makes the game most interesting, and that is the no communication rule. Admittedly, I do sometimes accidentally throw up a gesture or two to signal to other players, but even those are sometimes hilariously misunderstood and lead to some close calls or devastating defeats.
Overall, I think The Mind is a pretty neat game. It’s not one that I play too often, but it’s one that is simple enough to teach and play that I like playing it with newer gamers. The Mind plays fairly quickly too, so that makes it a good filler between some heavier games. Purple Phoenix Games (with input from guest score Tony) gives The Mind a thoughtful 14 / 24.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Ending The Game
Contains spoilers, click to show
Avengers: Endgame - the concluding installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's 'Infinity Saga', has made box office history, breaking a number of records on its' journey (thus far) of becoming the second highest grossing movie ever in a short period of time. Bringing together the story threads of 21 films before it 'Endgame' had a number of hurdles to overcome - not only did the Russo Brothers have to find a satisfying way to reverse the effects of 'The Decimation' (if you have to ask then you're probably reading the wrong review!) but they had to do so in a way that did not lessen the impact of 'Infinity War', whilst bringing to a close a number of character arcs for many well respected and founding members of Marvel's flagship superhero team and setting the course and direction for whatever comes next.
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
The question is, did it succeed?
At the time of writing 'Endgame' has been in cinemas for over two weeks and all embargoes pertaining to spoilers have since been rescinded. It is on that note that I will make the following SPOILER ALERT and advise anyone yet to see the movie (is there actually anyone out there daring to call themselves a fan who hasn't seen it?!) to leave now.....
Endgame picks up a few short weeks after the events of 'Infinity War' and depicts the surviving heroes of Thanos's snap coming up again him once again. The encounter is very short lived but doesn't go as planned/hoped effectively destroying all hope for returning the vanished. Que a five year time-jump..
Steve Rogers heads up a support group for the survivors, Natasha Romanoff directs the remaining Avengers refusing to move on, Tony Stark and Pepper Potts are living a quiet life raising their daughter, Thor has spiraled into despair at New Asgard effectively leaving Valkyrie in charge, Clint Barton has become the blood-thirsty vigilante Ronin - tracking down and eliminating those criminals who escaped the decimation when his family didn't, and Bruce Banner has found a way to merge personalities with the Hulk allowing both to co-exist as one (Professor Hulk).
Things look pretty grim until AntMan (Scott Lang) returns - quite accidentally, from the Quantum Realm bringing with him the key to bringing everyone back and reversing Thanos's decimation. And that's where time travel appears...
The Avengers must travel back to key moments in their history to remove the Infinity Stones and bring them to the present where Stark and Banner create their own Gauntlet to house them. This involves the second act of the movie displaying some time travel shenanigans as our heroes interact with events - and themselves, of previously seen movies. Such encounters include revisiting the events of Avengers Assemble, Thor:The Dark World, and Guardians Of The Galaxy. Don't expect a retread of the 'Back To The Future' franchise however, as Avengers: Endgame creates its' own rules for time travel. Basically, going back in time and interfering with established events does not alter the future - instead it creates a branched reality (think parallel timeline), however traversing the Quantum Realm will still return you to the original timeline you came from. In other words, go back in time kill Thanos, return to the future and you've changed nothing.... Simple, right?!
That's the basic gist, and all I'll give you for now.
Whilst this does follow on from 'Infinity War', 'Endgame' is stylistically and tonally a different movie. Whereas the former threw us straight into the thick of the action and never let up until the devastating conclusion, throwing a cavalcade of heroes at us in a relentless fashion, 'Endgame' scales it all back (for two thirds of the running time at least) focusing on the original six core Avengers (with strong support from Don Cheadle's War Machine, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Paul Rudd (returning as AntMan), and of course, Rocket Raccoon! With the preceding movie been Captain Marvel you would be forgiven for thinking Brie Larson would play a strong role in this movie, however - with a throwaway line earlier on justifying her absence, Carol Danvers features for all of around fifteen minutes! That's not to say she doesn't make an impact when she does I might add! Given the downbeat tone to 'Endgame' there is a lot of humour from start to finish - Chris Hemsworth, Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, I'm looking at you most here!, which in no way detracts from the weight of what's at sake here.
Josh Brolin is back as Thanos, and Thanos...that's right, two versions of the mad Titan appear. The one whom our heroes go up against during the final third act is a past version who travels forward in time to present after seeing into his own future and witnessing the efforts of Earth's Mightiest Heroes and the lengths they are prepared to go to in order to 'decimate' his plans. This is a Thanos whom I would deem more ruthless that 'Infinity War's' protagonist, a Thanos now determined to erase ALL life in the Universe.
I imagine the biggest question - well, one biggie amongst many, fans going into this movie blind had concerned who would return after the shocking climax to 'Infinity War' (along with whether those who died in that movie stayed that way). There was never any doubt - was there, that the vanished would return? It isn't that much of a spoiler then to reveal that the final thirty minutes or so of 'Endgame' features every MCU hero on screen together embroiled in the biggest fight of their lives. And what a visual delight it is. The visuals in this film are fantastic and the final battle rivals anything Peter Jackson gave us.
I was fortunate enough to see 'Endgame' at the first screening (pre-midnight) at a local cinema and what an experience it was - a mini comic con. The atmosphere was electric and it was a highly memorable experience.
Everyone involved in this movie deserves kudos, for this lifelong superhero fanboy Avengers: Endgame is the best movie....ever.
If I may digress somewhat, there has been much confusion reported concerning the movie's ending, namely the resolution to Steve Rogers' story. Having returned the Infinity Stones to their rightful place in the MCU timeline Cap chooses to remain in the past (circa 1940-ish) and to live out his life with Peggy Carter (the final shot shows the two having that well overdue dance). Whilst the perfect sendoff this has left many conflicted as to the implications with some reviewers claiming this goes against the rules established earlier in the movie relating to the use of time travel. It really isn't that complicated. Essentially there are two theories at play that can explain the climax.
The first is that Steve simply lived out a life in secrecy within the established continuity, choosing not to involve himself in major events. This does not contradict what we've seen so far - back in 'The Winter Soldier' we see archive footage of Peggy from the nineteen fifties in which she talks about Captain America saving her (un-named) husband during the war. It isn't really a reach of the imagination to suspect that Cap and this man are one and the same. In the same movie, present day Steve visits a dying Peggy - clearly suffering the effects of dementia, who apologises to him for the life he didn't have. Could this be a reference to the man she married having to live a life of secrecy, choosing to stay out of the fight for fear of creating a divergent reality? Given that the movie establishes that actions in the past will not change the future (within the main timeline) Steve's interference would not change anything in 'our' reality anyhow.
The second theory is that Steve created a branched reality by reuniting with Peggy and lived a fulfilling life in that alternate timeline, only returning to the main timeline an old man when the time was right to handover the shield to Sam Wilson/Falcon (as seen at the end of the movie). Sure, this raises questions as to how Steve was able to cross realities but to be honest - that's a story for another time and the answer isn't important (for now).
Further confusing things is the fact that the Writers and Directors cannot seemingly agree, with Marcus and McFeely disputing the alternate reality theory that the Russo brothers subscribe to. You could argue that surely it is the Writer's view that counts, as..after all, they wrote it! Well, yes and no. The directors translate their understanding of the written word onto the screen and it has been reported that additional material was filmed after test audiences struggled with the time travel aspects of the film. Therefore it's not that hard to believe that the film - and that ending, were shot in a way that supported the film-makers understanding. I subscribe to the former - the romantic in me and all that, with Steve's story coming full circle with the revelation that he was always there with Peggy. Either way, both theories work and preserve the integrity of what has come before.
In any regard it's the perfect ending for Captain America!
So, to conclude....did it succeed? OH YES!!
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Avengers (2012) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Some assembly required
There's a lot about this movie I love (it used to be one of my favorite films to rewatch when I was a teenager), one thing that really stood out to me about watching this again for the first time in awhile, is how much Whedon understands the language of comics.
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Whenever people bring that aspect up, they usually talk about the splash panel inspired sequences (the long take through the Battle of New York), but nobody tends to talk about the choices he makes with how he and Seamus McGarvey decide to shoot the smaller scale scenes like they were regular panels.
Take Loki's entrance for example; as the laser begins to open the portal, we cut above, seeing how big the room is and how long the laser is, all in a wide, beautiful shot, taken from an angel to capture the intensity of the villain's entrance, and then that's followed up with a panel inspired close up on Loki's eyes as he breaks into a grin. Or the shot of Natasha being integrated from the prospective of the mirror in the room, and we see various different treasures as it pushes away from it.
Or probably the best example of this, is Steve's introduction; repeatedly working himself up with every punch, flashing back to the events in his life that make him feel the most intense, before punching it straight off its hook, only for him to grab another one of several he has lying there.
It's little touches like this that are sprinkled throughout, making you feel like you're watching a comic book in motion without having to go full on "Scott Pilgrim", "Into The Spider-Verse", "Speed Racer", or even "Batman: The Movie", along with capturing the lavish and striking lighting and colors found within some of the best artists for them.
Plus, while Whedon's writing is known for his sense of humor (for better and worse, especially when it comes to it's impact on the rest of these films post this one), I don't think enough of us take into account how much that humor is there to service the characters, not just the viewers.
Both this and his work with Drew Goddard on "Cabin in the Woods" showcase this perfectly. When Marty in "Cabin" asks if anyone else thinks something weird is going on when Curt contradict himself by saying they should split up, he isn't just saying that for the sake of a gag, it's Whedon and Goddard's way of hinting that he knows more than the others, and establishing that he's immune from these tricks being played on them.
When Steve and Tony are arguing about who's stronger and Steve keeps saying "put on the suit!", once shit hits the fan, he says it once again, but in a way that's far more urgent and fearful, not just being there for the sake of a funny payoff, but as progression for the next series of events that need to play out.
And, man....
There's just so many great moments. Not just the action or the characters working off of each other, but little moments, like the Old Man standing up for Earth to Loki, Steve giving Fury ten bucks after seeing the Helicarrier in action, Bruce mentioning the time he figured he had enough and how he couldn't end it himself, complete with the fear trembling in his voice and facial expression, Loki saying "I'm listening" as Thor was taken away from him, or his monologue to Natasha, the entire New York battle centering around them both trying to keep the army at bay and save as many by standards as possible, just too many to name.
It's one of the most memorable and entertaining blockbusters of this decade and while it doesn't feel as special seeing all of these people in the same movie anymore, it still has them at their best and manages to do it so effortlessly. Like it's one thing that this movie exists, but the fact that it worked is something that'll never not be amazing.
What else can I say, really? It's "The Avengers". You've likely seen it, memed about it, quoted it, referenced it, it doesn't matter, it's been here for nearly ten years now and it's impact is still felt and mentioned. As well as something that's super easy to put on and rewatch, either for some lazy day entertainment, or to revisit during the lead up to their next big adventure.....
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated All the Crooked Saints in Books
Jan 10, 2018 (Updated Jan 10, 2018)
Story of love, loss, and sadness that everyone can appreciate
Maggie Stiefvater's latest--a stand-alone novel--tells the tale of the Soria family, who live in Bicho Raro, Colorado in the 1960s. On the family compound, you'll find the extended Soria family, including the three cousins: Beatriz, Daniel, and Joaquin. Beatriz is scientific-minded; so much, in fact, that she believes she has no feelings. Daniel is the Saint of Bicho Raro, and performs miracles for the Pilgrims who come in droves for the magic the Sorias can offer. Joaquin loves music and performs as Diablo Diablo on an illegal radio station he operates. The Sorias live apart from the Pilgrims they serve, believing helping and interfering with them after performing the first miracle will only bring on darkness. After all, it happened with Daniel's late parents. But when Daniel becomes involved with a Pilgrim named Marisita and a young man named Pete arrives at Bicho Raro looking for work, the Sorias are forced to confront many of their long-held beliefs.
I won't lie: it's a little hard to review this book, beyond saying that it's very much a Maggie Stiefvater novel. If you haven't read one of Stiefvater's novels before, I'm not sure I'd start with this one, even if it is one of her few stand-alone books. Her novels are typically full of all things fancy and fantastical, forcing the reader to suspend reality and be prepared to come along fully for the ride. If you can't do that, or don't enjoy such books, this isn't for you. Even I, who am familiar with her style, had a little trouble with this one at points.
Stiefvater has a way with language; she loves words and weaving a spell with them, and her novels are dense with beauty and picturesque scenes. She uses a repetitious style here in many of her sentences and the overall structure: again, something you might have to get used to.
Still, this book is bizarre but compelling. I put it aside the first night I started it and wasn't sure I'd enjoy it, but when I picked it up again, I was sucked into the Soria's story. The cousins are all rather enthralling characters, and you truly become a part of their journey. Sure, the miracle idea seems a little crazy, but it really just is part of the book, along with the owls, a giant, the moving earth, etc. It's really lovely at times, and I enjoyed the comparisons between miracles and radio waves.
As mentioned, Daniel, Beatriz, and Joaquin are all fascinating characters, and I also really grew to care for Pete, as well, along with another character named Tony. Even Marisita grew on me. There's a bit of suspense and tension to the novel, and you'll find yourself intrigued to see how things turn out. The themes of humanity, darkness, and family are well-done overall.
This probably isn't my favorite of Stiefvater's books; I love the Shiver series and The Raven Boys series, much like this novel, is even more mystical, but features the same sort of compelling characters as here. However, the story and characters grew on me, and I don't regret reading it. It's enjoyable, albeit somewhat odd at times. The story of love, loss, and sadness at its core is one everyone can appreciate.
I won't lie: it's a little hard to review this book, beyond saying that it's very much a Maggie Stiefvater novel. If you haven't read one of Stiefvater's novels before, I'm not sure I'd start with this one, even if it is one of her few stand-alone books. Her novels are typically full of all things fancy and fantastical, forcing the reader to suspend reality and be prepared to come along fully for the ride. If you can't do that, or don't enjoy such books, this isn't for you. Even I, who am familiar with her style, had a little trouble with this one at points.
Stiefvater has a way with language; she loves words and weaving a spell with them, and her novels are dense with beauty and picturesque scenes. She uses a repetitious style here in many of her sentences and the overall structure: again, something you might have to get used to.
Still, this book is bizarre but compelling. I put it aside the first night I started it and wasn't sure I'd enjoy it, but when I picked it up again, I was sucked into the Soria's story. The cousins are all rather enthralling characters, and you truly become a part of their journey. Sure, the miracle idea seems a little crazy, but it really just is part of the book, along with the owls, a giant, the moving earth, etc. It's really lovely at times, and I enjoyed the comparisons between miracles and radio waves.
As mentioned, Daniel, Beatriz, and Joaquin are all fascinating characters, and I also really grew to care for Pete, as well, along with another character named Tony. Even Marisita grew on me. There's a bit of suspense and tension to the novel, and you'll find yourself intrigued to see how things turn out. The themes of humanity, darkness, and family are well-done overall.
This probably isn't my favorite of Stiefvater's books; I love the Shiver series and The Raven Boys series, much like this novel, is even more mystical, but features the same sort of compelling characters as here. However, the story and characters grew on me, and I don't regret reading it. It's enjoyable, albeit somewhat odd at times. The story of love, loss, and sadness at its core is one everyone can appreciate.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated Tony Hogan Bought Me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma in Books
May 14, 2017
This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
‘Graffiti and scorch marks, echoes of small fires, decorated doorsteps. Golden Special Brew cans and crushed vodka bottles, bright as diamonds, collected in gutters. Front gardens were filled with mouldy paddling pools and, occasionally, a rust burnished shell of a car. I had never seen anything so beautiful, so many colours, before in grey Aberdeen.’
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
This is a novel with nothing held back. While the title is light hearted and the cover art bright and cheerful, both are deceiving. The cover shows a silhouette of a young girl holding a giant red balloon against the backdrop of a Scottish suburban town. It is important to address the significance of this image. Readers may recall a similar painting by Banksy, named Girl With Balloon which was originally painted on a wall in London. Beside the painting was engraved “There Is Always Hope”. While Banksy’s painting shows the girl releasing the balloon, possibly representing lost hope or lost innocence, Hudson’s cover shows the girl being lifted by the balloon. Considering this when addressing the text, it is clear that Hudson wished to demonstrate that one can only hold on to hope by not letting go. Critics have described this book as containing bittersweet humour and Hudson cleverly intrudes in the second chapter by saying that this is in fact a ‘humorous cautionary tale’. As soon as you begin reading, expect to get dirt under your nails. The author launches right into the location of the novel using regional Scottish dialect and local Aberdonian vernacular. The story begins with the birth of out protagonist, Janie Ryan. Born to Iris (formally Irene), a single, homeless mother who comes from a line of women described as ‘fishwives to the marrow’, Iris has recently returned from London after trying to change her destiny (not wanting to become her mother). After falling pregnant to a rich and married American man, the relationship breaks down. Iris is forced to return to poverty in the back streets of Aberdeen but is keen to ensure that things have changed,’ I didnae go all the way to fuckin’ London to come back an’ be the same old Irene!’ Unfortunately, Iris falls back into her old ways and for Janie; this has a direct effect on her life. The reader follows the protagonist from her first home to temporary care and then to a string of homes over the UK in some of its poorest areas. Janie watches, as her mother gets involved in some abusive relationships, including one with alcohol, and watches helplessly as her mother loses hope. Towards the latter end of the novel, it is clear that Janie is falling into the same habits as her mother, however, a string of unfortunate event forces her to reassess her life. The end of the novel, like the cover art, is left to the reader’s interpretation. Can Janie break the cycle and make changes to her life, or is she destined to become her mother? This is not only a well-written novel but also a powerful commentary on life within the poverty trap.
Kerry Hudson, Tony Hogan Bought me an Ice Cream Float Before He Stole My Ma, 2012 published by Vintage Books
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Awesome
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.