Search
Search results
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Mar 7, 2019 (Updated Mar 7, 2019)
Characters (1 more)
SFX
One For A Rainy Day
A few years ago when I heard the guy from My Chemical Romance had wrote a graphic novel, it peaked my interest, but after reading up on some reviews of the book, it just sounded like a rip-off of other properties like Watchmen and X-Men and to be honest I wasn't a huge fan of the obscure character designs and bizarre artwork. I never got around to reading it after this as I was kind of put off by the accusations of unoriginality and the weird art.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
Then late last year, I read that there was a Netflix adaption of the show being released and my curiosity was once again peaked. After reading some of the early glowing reviews from critics, I knew that I had found my next binge.
This show is fantastic, which for the most part is owed to it's well written and well acted characters. The members of the Umbrella Academy and their various odd relationships with one another, as well as the outsiders that have interaction with them throughout the show, make the character dynamics of this show as a whole pretty unique and exciting. The cast are all brilliant, with Robert Sheehan's Klaus being the clear stand-out. He gets all of the best lines and nails the American accent that he speaks with in the show.
It is cool to get an insight into the world that the show-runners have crafted, which is as odd as it is charming. It is similar to our own world, with a few pretty drastic changes that change the dynamic of the universe in a oddly interesting way. There were points while watching the show that I was reminded of other superhero stories like Watchmen and X-Men, but instead of Umbrella Academy blatantly ripping off these other stories, it instead takes some of the best parts from its respective influences and adapts them to suit the narrative that is unfolding. It comes off as more of a wink and a nod than just a lazy copy/paste job.
I also feel like the amazing CGI work on Pogo the chimp, - who is highly intelligent and serves as the family's butler, - deserves a shout-out. It is quite possibly the best CGI that I have ever seen in a TV show and is almost on the same level as the CGI on Caesar in the Planet Of The Apes movies.
Overall, The Umbrella Academy is a stellar example of what happens when a show embraces it's influences and presents them in a coherent way in collaboration with the original story that the show itself is telling. It is not the greatest superhero story ever filmed, but it is an extremely entertaining and satisfying ride that the show takes you on over its 10 episodes and it is well worth your time.
JT (287 KP) rated Sucker Punch (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Sucker Punch will pack just that, a massive visual punch, so hard you’ll be doubled over by the stunning action sequences the film has to offer. Using a number of different scenarios from an alternative reality concocted in the mind of Baby Doll (Emily Browning), she plots a daring escape with the help of her fellow sexy inmates, and I do mean sexy.
This group include Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Amber (Jamie Chung ) and sisters Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) and Rocket (Jena Malone). They teach Baby to retreat into increasingly ridiculous fantasies to escape the sinister fate that awaits her. During a number of daring missions in which they tackle everything from Nazis, mechanical robots and fire breathing dragons they must acquire a selection of different items along the way each aiding them in their quest. All the time guided through by the Wise Man (Scott Glenn).
There is no denying that Snyder is one of the most exciting action directors about although some would say that his storytelling is not as strong. He leaves the backstory to be played out in the opening credits. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with that, in fact I think it is done very well.
It’s clear though from the limited and brief interlude of a back story that Snyder was only thinking about making these dream sequences as elaborate as he possibly and he certainly achieved that! The girls battle through in next to nothing, short skirts, knee high socks and push up bras. Titillating, it’s close to a peep show with guns.
Given that this is Snyder’s own original screenplay I think he has done enough to hold his own. While not as engaging as 300 or Watchmen it’s a definite A for effort with a soundtrack that is not a bad listen either.
This group include Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), Amber (Jamie Chung ) and sisters Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish) and Rocket (Jena Malone). They teach Baby to retreat into increasingly ridiculous fantasies to escape the sinister fate that awaits her. During a number of daring missions in which they tackle everything from Nazis, mechanical robots and fire breathing dragons they must acquire a selection of different items along the way each aiding them in their quest. All the time guided through by the Wise Man (Scott Glenn).
There is no denying that Snyder is one of the most exciting action directors about although some would say that his storytelling is not as strong. He leaves the backstory to be played out in the opening credits. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with that, in fact I think it is done very well.
It’s clear though from the limited and brief interlude of a back story that Snyder was only thinking about making these dream sequences as elaborate as he possibly and he certainly achieved that! The girls battle through in next to nothing, short skirts, knee high socks and push up bras. Titillating, it’s close to a peep show with guns.
Given that this is Snyder’s own original screenplay I think he has done enough to hold his own. While not as engaging as 300 or Watchmen it’s a definite A for effort with a soundtrack that is not a bad listen either.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Rusty Brown in Books
Aug 6, 2020
Just look at what a beautiful object this book is! It gets better on the inside, too. The detail and creativity is immense; the dust cover unfolds into a gorgeous mosaic, with puzzles, and even the copyright notes have a little Easter egg snuck in there. Every satisfyingly thick page of it is dense with ideas and art of admirable quality. It’s heavy and well made. Simply, one of the nicest books aesthetically I’ve ever owned.
I don’t have a big history of reading graphic novels. In fact I can count them on one hand: this one, Watchmen, V for Vendetta and Persepolis. But what I see I like. There is something extra on the storytelling that is the best of both a book and a film – like a film unravelling at the pace of a book, with your imagination made into still images. I love the possibilities of them! There really isn’t anything you couldn’t do with it given enough imagination. I must try a few more as I go through life.
Rusty Brown, by Chris Ware is rich, melancholy, sometimes downright sad, but always truthful. Nothing is exaggerated, only presented, as we see snapshots of all the children and teachers that live in a small American town. They are dealing with regret, nostalgia, self-esteem, bullying and secret Joys, but in a mundane way as the routine of life plays out around them. Yet it manages never to seem bleak or hopeless, as enough moments of beauty keep everyone afloat.
There is a hint of subversive politics going on under the surface, but no more than issue flitting through Chris Ware’s mind; there’s no agenda or propaganda going on. He’s basically showing us a place he knows and saying, huh, what do you think of this. It made me laugh out loud many times, and cry at least twice. Remarkable work.
Both this artist and graphic novels in general are now very much something on my radar to learn more about and enjoy. If you haven’t ever really tried, I recommend Rusty Brown Chris Ware whole-heartedly as a starting place.
I don’t have a big history of reading graphic novels. In fact I can count them on one hand: this one, Watchmen, V for Vendetta and Persepolis. But what I see I like. There is something extra on the storytelling that is the best of both a book and a film – like a film unravelling at the pace of a book, with your imagination made into still images. I love the possibilities of them! There really isn’t anything you couldn’t do with it given enough imagination. I must try a few more as I go through life.
Rusty Brown, by Chris Ware is rich, melancholy, sometimes downright sad, but always truthful. Nothing is exaggerated, only presented, as we see snapshots of all the children and teachers that live in a small American town. They are dealing with regret, nostalgia, self-esteem, bullying and secret Joys, but in a mundane way as the routine of life plays out around them. Yet it manages never to seem bleak or hopeless, as enough moments of beauty keep everyone afloat.
There is a hint of subversive politics going on under the surface, but no more than issue flitting through Chris Ware’s mind; there’s no agenda or propaganda going on. He’s basically showing us a place he knows and saying, huh, what do you think of this. It made me laugh out loud many times, and cry at least twice. Remarkable work.
Both this artist and graphic novels in general are now very much something on my radar to learn more about and enjoy. If you haven’t ever really tried, I recommend Rusty Brown Chris Ware whole-heartedly as a starting place.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Swamp Thing, Vol. 4: A Murder of Crows in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Earlier this year I had finished Vol. 3 and was ready to start on Vol. 4, but I just wasn't feeling it. The timing just wasn't right. So, I put off my re-visitation of Alan Moore's <b>EFFING BRILLIANT</b> SWAMP THING run...until the other night, when the "timing" returned and I devoured it two nights! Now, with that out of the way, onto my review...
In my reviews for the first three volumes, I mentioned that this was a re-visitation of sorts. It was always something I had intended, returning to a series I had not read since it first came out in the 80s, but it wasn't until going the digital route that I felt the time was due.
This is the volume that introduces that ol' bastard John Constantine, and for that alone, this volume is worth the price of admission! However, it was the path that Constantine sets Swampy on, and the tense and unforgettable finale that culminates in Issue 50, the last part of this volume! For that turns it all the way up to Eleven! Yeah, no Spoilers, despite it's age, but it is intense as a comic could be and then some!
Moore has become, in my eyes, some of a pain in the ass over the last few years. However, with SWAMP THING, as well as WATCHMEN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, he was totally on his game! There was not one issue in this volume that had me thinking, <i>"Yeah, this was good, but that one story was just absolute rubbish!"</i>. It was pure gold!
Now let it be said that I think the artwork of Jock is about as good as it gets as far as stirring horror images that stay with you long after the story is finished! However, after seeing the art of Stephen R. Bissette and John Tottleben, I was reminded of being scared reading this the first time out, and even now, on the re-read! Man, what I wouldn't give to seem them do another Swampy run, maybe even a guest spot on JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK! Oh, I am excited just imagining how frikkin' <b>AWESOME</b> that would be!
Look, there are a ton of great reviews out there, wherein the writer takes and analyzes everything of importance in this volume. And a number of those great reviews are right here on Goodreads! But, I can't add much to what has already been said! All I can add is this: You soooooo need to read this series! That's all I'm gonna say!
In my reviews for the first three volumes, I mentioned that this was a re-visitation of sorts. It was always something I had intended, returning to a series I had not read since it first came out in the 80s, but it wasn't until going the digital route that I felt the time was due.
This is the volume that introduces that ol' bastard John Constantine, and for that alone, this volume is worth the price of admission! However, it was the path that Constantine sets Swampy on, and the tense and unforgettable finale that culminates in Issue 50, the last part of this volume! For that turns it all the way up to Eleven! Yeah, no Spoilers, despite it's age, but it is intense as a comic could be and then some!
Moore has become, in my eyes, some of a pain in the ass over the last few years. However, with SWAMP THING, as well as WATCHMEN and THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, he was totally on his game! There was not one issue in this volume that had me thinking, <i>"Yeah, this was good, but that one story was just absolute rubbish!"</i>. It was pure gold!
Now let it be said that I think the artwork of Jock is about as good as it gets as far as stirring horror images that stay with you long after the story is finished! However, after seeing the art of Stephen R. Bissette and John Tottleben, I was reminded of being scared reading this the first time out, and even now, on the re-read! Man, what I wouldn't give to seem them do another Swampy run, maybe even a guest spot on JUSTICE LEAGUE DARK! Oh, I am excited just imagining how frikkin' <b>AWESOME</b> that would be!
Look, there are a ton of great reviews out there, wherein the writer takes and analyzes everything of importance in this volume. And a number of those great reviews are right here on Goodreads! But, I can't add much to what has already been said! All I can add is this: You soooooo need to read this series! That's all I'm gonna say!
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated The Batman Who Laughs in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I am really eating up DC's books of late, especially the Scott Snyder and James Tynion IV! Yes, there are some hiccups along the way, as true for even the best of publishers, but the overall good output far outshines the bad/MEH output! I am quite liking this whole "Rebirth" thing and the way it ties into WATCHMEN, can't wait to see it all wrapped with DOOMSDAY CLOCK #12. <i>*ahem*</i> Let's not get ahead of ourselves then, eh? Onto my thoughts on TBWL..
I liked it quite a bit! Yes, it probably could easily have been a 5-issue mini, but I don't feel the story suffered by the added length. It allowed for the crazy roller coaster ride that it was to be even crazier, helped to spread just a bit more darkness in Gotham! Oh, and it showed how Alfred truly is the necessary light in Batman/Bruce's life, something B-Man totally needs, far more than Selina (sorry, Tom King, but I don't think the romance between the two works. Jus' sayin' is all!).
I know a lot of folks absolutely <b>abhor</b> DARK NIGHTS: METAL and anything relating to it, including the Batman Who Laughs! Me? I am enjoying it to no great end! It reminds me of some of the best things about the 90's, just turned up to 11! I think it's an interesting concept, bringing some clever creepiness into DC's "Rebirth"! And besides, it is at least something fresh and different (unlike the umpteenth X-deaths/reboots over at Marvel!)!
One aspect of the mini that really drove it all home was the art by Jock. I loved what he did in the WYTCHES (also with Snyder), and here it is just as good, if not better. The use of shadows and angles brings the creepiness all up and about, leaving with you long after the lights have gone out and sleep comes over you!
I already mentioned it, and several others have as well in their reviews, but Alfred was clearly the MVP here! He was totally on board, taking being a butler to a whole new level beyond 100%! I think sometimes he is under-utilized, but here he definitely got some much needed appreciation and respect! Kudos to you, Scott Snyder, for giving Alfred his due!
And lastly, that ending, the last couple panels? Ewwwww... chills!! Now, I can not wait to read Joshua Williamson's BATMAN/SUPERMAN #1! No spoilers, tho', promise!
So, yes, I was super-impressed with THE BATMAN WHO LAUGHS, just as I was with Snyder's DARK NIGHTS: METAL. If you didn't like METAL, then, well, chances are pretty likely you won't like this one!
I liked it quite a bit! Yes, it probably could easily have been a 5-issue mini, but I don't feel the story suffered by the added length. It allowed for the crazy roller coaster ride that it was to be even crazier, helped to spread just a bit more darkness in Gotham! Oh, and it showed how Alfred truly is the necessary light in Batman/Bruce's life, something B-Man totally needs, far more than Selina (sorry, Tom King, but I don't think the romance between the two works. Jus' sayin' is all!).
I know a lot of folks absolutely <b>abhor</b> DARK NIGHTS: METAL and anything relating to it, including the Batman Who Laughs! Me? I am enjoying it to no great end! It reminds me of some of the best things about the 90's, just turned up to 11! I think it's an interesting concept, bringing some clever creepiness into DC's "Rebirth"! And besides, it is at least something fresh and different (unlike the umpteenth X-deaths/reboots over at Marvel!)!
One aspect of the mini that really drove it all home was the art by Jock. I loved what he did in the WYTCHES (also with Snyder), and here it is just as good, if not better. The use of shadows and angles brings the creepiness all up and about, leaving with you long after the lights have gone out and sleep comes over you!
I already mentioned it, and several others have as well in their reviews, but Alfred was clearly the MVP here! He was totally on board, taking being a butler to a whole new level beyond 100%! I think sometimes he is under-utilized, but here he definitely got some much needed appreciation and respect! Kudos to you, Scott Snyder, for giving Alfred his due!
And lastly, that ending, the last couple panels? Ewwwww... chills!! Now, I can not wait to read Joshua Williamson's BATMAN/SUPERMAN #1! No spoilers, tho', promise!
So, yes, I was super-impressed with THE BATMAN WHO LAUGHS, just as I was with Snyder's DARK NIGHTS: METAL. If you didn't like METAL, then, well, chances are pretty likely you won't like this one!
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Boys in TV
Jul 7, 2020
A Gritty Superhero Drama With Equal Parts Dark Comedy, Blood And Violence
The Boys is a 2019 black comedy/action/superhero/drama web tv series developed by Eric Kripke for Amazon. It was produced by Sony Pictures Television, Amazon Studios, Kripke Enterprises, Point Grey Pictures, Original Film, Kickstart Entertainment and KFL Knightsky Productions. Executive producters on the show include Erick Kripke, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg, James Weaver, Neal H. Moritz, Pavun Shetty, Ori Marmur, Dan Trachtenberg, Ken. F. Levin and Jason Netter. The series stars actors Karl Urban, Jack Quaid, Anthony Starr, Erin Moriarty, Dominique McElligot and Jessie T. Usher.
Hugh "Hughie" Campbell (Jack Quaid) is a regular guy living in a city where superpowered people are recognized as heroes by the general public and owned by a powerful corporation Vought International, which markets and monetizes them. Outside of their heroic personas, these heroes are arrogant and corrupt, none more so than the Seven, Vought's premier superhero team. After his girlfriend is killed by A-Train (Jessie T. Usher), one of the Seven, Hughie is sought out by Billy Butcher (Karl Urban), a man who despises all superpowered people, and whose goal is to "spank the bastards when they get out of line".
This show is awesome. I was blown away by how much I liked it and binged watched it in one day. It reminded me of Watchmen a little bit in how it was a darker version of a superhero world. I really liked how it balanced the dark comedy with the violence and pacing of the plot. It was incredibly violent though, with lots of blood and gore. The acting was really good too with the actors being believable in their roles. I enjoyed the character development from several of the characters like Hughie and Starlight. Even the Deep, who I disliked was able to make me feel sorry for him in a couple of parts. The special effects were pretty top notch and I hardly noticed anything I didn't think fit or stuck out in a wrong way. The twists in the plot as the story progressed really kept me into it. It also had a lot of emotional scenes that I didn't think it would. There were a couple of things that bothered me like when a character acted out of character or did something that I didn't understand their motivations, and also the weird relationship between Homelander and Madelynn Stillwell. The latter of which you have more understanding towards the end. The only thing that really disappointed me was that there were only 8 episodes for the season. I almost gave this show a 9 but like I said there were a couple of things that I didn't like with it, still I give this show a 8/10. It also gets my "Must See Seal Of Approval". You really got to check this show out if you haven't seen it.
Hugh "Hughie" Campbell (Jack Quaid) is a regular guy living in a city where superpowered people are recognized as heroes by the general public and owned by a powerful corporation Vought International, which markets and monetizes them. Outside of their heroic personas, these heroes are arrogant and corrupt, none more so than the Seven, Vought's premier superhero team. After his girlfriend is killed by A-Train (Jessie T. Usher), one of the Seven, Hughie is sought out by Billy Butcher (Karl Urban), a man who despises all superpowered people, and whose goal is to "spank the bastards when they get out of line".
This show is awesome. I was blown away by how much I liked it and binged watched it in one day. It reminded me of Watchmen a little bit in how it was a darker version of a superhero world. I really liked how it balanced the dark comedy with the violence and pacing of the plot. It was incredibly violent though, with lots of blood and gore. The acting was really good too with the actors being believable in their roles. I enjoyed the character development from several of the characters like Hughie and Starlight. Even the Deep, who I disliked was able to make me feel sorry for him in a couple of parts. The special effects were pretty top notch and I hardly noticed anything I didn't think fit or stuck out in a wrong way. The twists in the plot as the story progressed really kept me into it. It also had a lot of emotional scenes that I didn't think it would. There were a couple of things that bothered me like when a character acted out of character or did something that I didn't understand their motivations, and also the weird relationship between Homelander and Madelynn Stillwell. The latter of which you have more understanding towards the end. The only thing that really disappointed me was that there were only 8 episodes for the season. I almost gave this show a 9 but like I said there were a couple of things that I didn't like with it, still I give this show a 8/10. It also gets my "Must See Seal Of Approval". You really got to check this show out if you haven't seen it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.