Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
DC gets it right
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that Wonder Woman is alright because it’s been directed by a woman, or that it’s the most progressive superhero film of the last decade. No, neither of those things are true.
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
However, the titular superhero, played superbly by Gal Gadot stars in by far the best film in the ever-expanding DC Universe – though with Suicide Squad and Batman v Superman as stablemates, that really isn’t saying much.
Before she became Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an invincible warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets a US pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her safe haven for the very first time. She fights alongside men of war and along the way discovers her true potential and her destiny.
So, let’s get the elephant in the room out of the way first. Director Patty Jenkins is one of the only women to have helmed a big summer blockbuster. Mimi Leder crafted Deep Impact back in 1998 and since then, female directors have been few and far between with Kathryn Bigelow being a notable exception. The gravitas of this cannot be understated.
How does the cast do? Well, it’s a story of two halves. Gal Gadot has proven herself in Batman v Superman and with a full film behind her, she is exceptional. It’s almost impossible to now think of anyone better suited to playing the titular character. Chris Pine is fine but he’s in the film far too much – not really his fault, but a superhero sidekick is usually relegated to a few witty one-liners rather than a fully-fledged supporting role.
The villains on the other hand are absolute garbage. Danny Huston hams it up as a German general and Elena Anaya’s portrayal of “Dr Poison” aiming to ramp up the war effort with the introduction of mustard gas is little to no use to the plot. The introduction of another villainous character towards the film’s climax also fails to lift the offering.
But what about the special effects? You guessed it, it’s 50/50. The sequences of Wonder Woman braving No Man’s Land are stunning, especially with the now instantly recognisable theme tune playing in the background, but this is poorly juxtaposed with some very shoddy CGI, it had me thinking of 2003’s Catwoman it was that bad.
Then the finale arrives and we’re thrown head first into the same CGI heavy ending that blights the majority of comic-book films nowadays. So, whilst it’s true that Patty Jenkins certainly knows how to shoot the action, she’s let down by cheap looking special effects.
Overall, Wonder Woman is a perfectly decent addition to the DCEU and certainly head and shoulders above its other offerings. The problem arises when we take a deeper look at Gal Gadot – she’s much, much better than the film she is in, and that’s a problem facing Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Will Smith, Margot Robbie… you get the picture.
Justice League, the ball is in your court.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/02/dc-gets-it-right-wonder-woman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Good sci-fi, but a poor sequel
Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot in common with last year’s Jurassic World. They both are long-awaited sequels to fan-favourite blockbusters, bringing a new generation the same thrills and spills of their forbearers.
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Unfortunately, it just so happens that they share the same pitfalls too. But is Independence Day: Resurgence a match for its 1996 predecessor? Or does it crash and burn?
Roland Emmerich returns to the director’s chair, bringing the same breadth of destruction he’s brought to all of his films. The Day After Tomorrow, 2012 and White House Down all prove he’s the master of the apocalypse and Resurgence is no exception.
As the Fourth of July nears, satellite engineer David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) investigates a 3,000-mile-wide mother ship that’s approaching Earth. Fortunately, 20 years earlier, nations across the world started to use recovered extra-terrestrial technology to develop an immense defence program. When the alien invaders attack with unprecedented force, the U.S. president, teams of scientists and brave fighter pilots spring into action to save the planet from a seemingly invincible enemy.
Emmerich throws everything he can at the screen in a film just shy of two hours. The pace rarely lets up and it’s a rollercoaster ride to watch. Dozens of global landmarks are destroyed as our characters race to stop the new alien invasion.
Liam Hemsworth (The Hunger Games), Sela Ward (Gone Girl) and Jessie Usher make up the majority of the new cast with Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch providing a warm sense of nostalgia from the first film. There’s no return for Will Smith, with Jessie Usher playing his step-son and his character is conveniently written out.
Unfortunately, despite the talents of the new cast, the script doesn’t really give them anything to sink their teeth into and the overabundance of, admittedly breath-taking CGI, means there’s nothing there for them to react to – and it shows. Nevertheless, it’s nice to see Jeff Goldblum front and centre after nearly a decade of small film roles.
It’s just a shame that the script is wholly unoriginal. We saw most of it done in 1996, and frankly done better. Since then, there have been countless generic sci-fi flicks that have pushed the same simple premise on their audience and Resurgence suffers due to its timing more than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s all good fun IF you’re a fan of the genre, and there are some nice references to the first film. The aliens themselves look fantastic and the cinematography is generally very impressive, especially during the aerial bound action sequences.
However, things unravel at the finale. With what is undoubtedly one of the most stupid endings ever put to film, it’s hard not to laugh in amazement as you ponder just what was said around the production table to end up with a final act as ill-advised as this.
Overall, Independence Day: Resurgence has a lot going for it. A likeable new and returning cast is bolstered by brilliant, if overused, CGI and a frantic pace. Unfortunately, it’s a victim of its timing and as such is a decent sci-fi flick, but a poor sequel to its fantastic predecessor.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/24/good-sci-fi-but-a-poor-sequel-independence-day-resurgence-review/
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The 8th Doll (Alex Guidry, #1) in Books
Jun 7, 2018
(This review is also on my blog <a href="http://themisadventuresofatwentysomething.blogspot.co.uk/">The (Mis)Adventures of a Twenty-Something Year Old Girl</a>).
I have to admit that I've never read a book about the Mayan Prophecy. However, when I saw the synopsis of this book, I was definitely intrigued. It's not something I'd normally pick up and read, but I decided to take a chance on it. I'm glad I did because it was such an amazing book!!!
Charlie Landry, a geologist, is found beheaded during a drilling project in Mexico. To help find out why he was murdered and who did it, Alex Guidry is called in to help. A doll is found near Landry's body with the number 8 written in blood on the front. This now throws a spanner in the works. What is Landry trying to tell him? Also, who keeps murdering everyone?
The title of this book, The 8th Doll, definitely suits the story. The story revolves mainly around trying to figure out what this eighth doll means. Fantastic title chosen by the author.
I love the cover of this book! The cover gives you a big hint about what the story is going to be about with the doll with the eight written on it and the Mayan temple of the Seven Dolls in the background. I think it's a fantastic cover!
The setting takes place in Mexico which makes sense as that's where the Mayans lived. The author does a great job of portraying how Mexico is, especially when it comes to the climate!
The pacing of this book was fantastic!! It is definitely a fast paced thriller. I found myself wanting to know what was going to happen next in the story. Many times, I stayed up late just to finish many chapters.
The dialogue was definitely easy to understand. There are a few Spanish words in there, but they are easy enough to figure out what they mean, or they are explained. I was really happy about this.
The characters were very well developed. Alex has a good head on his shoulders and is a great detective. I loved the character of Maria. I don't know why, but I guess it's because she brought a woman's touch to the story, lol. Jenkins was my favourite character though. He was perfect with his comic timing. He reminds me of a cross between Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith. I also thought the baddie, Ah Pukuh, was written well. I also have to say that I loved the mayor. He's only a minor character, but I loved him nonetheless.
I loved the fact that this book used aspects of Mayan prophecy. I must admit that I don't know much about it, but after reading this book, it's clear that the author's done his homework on it. It's such a well written book!
The only fault I found with the book, and this is only a minor fault, is the insta-love between Maria and Alex. Lust I can believe in, but I'm not a believer of love at first sight. That's only a personal gripe though.
Definitely give The 8th Doll by Chris Rakunas a read even if this normally isn't your sort of book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+. It's so good!
I have to admit that I've never read a book about the Mayan Prophecy. However, when I saw the synopsis of this book, I was definitely intrigued. It's not something I'd normally pick up and read, but I decided to take a chance on it. I'm glad I did because it was such an amazing book!!!
Charlie Landry, a geologist, is found beheaded during a drilling project in Mexico. To help find out why he was murdered and who did it, Alex Guidry is called in to help. A doll is found near Landry's body with the number 8 written in blood on the front. This now throws a spanner in the works. What is Landry trying to tell him? Also, who keeps murdering everyone?
The title of this book, The 8th Doll, definitely suits the story. The story revolves mainly around trying to figure out what this eighth doll means. Fantastic title chosen by the author.
I love the cover of this book! The cover gives you a big hint about what the story is going to be about with the doll with the eight written on it and the Mayan temple of the Seven Dolls in the background. I think it's a fantastic cover!
The setting takes place in Mexico which makes sense as that's where the Mayans lived. The author does a great job of portraying how Mexico is, especially when it comes to the climate!
The pacing of this book was fantastic!! It is definitely a fast paced thriller. I found myself wanting to know what was going to happen next in the story. Many times, I stayed up late just to finish many chapters.
The dialogue was definitely easy to understand. There are a few Spanish words in there, but they are easy enough to figure out what they mean, or they are explained. I was really happy about this.
The characters were very well developed. Alex has a good head on his shoulders and is a great detective. I loved the character of Maria. I don't know why, but I guess it's because she brought a woman's touch to the story, lol. Jenkins was my favourite character though. He was perfect with his comic timing. He reminds me of a cross between Samuel L. Jackson and Will Smith. I also thought the baddie, Ah Pukuh, was written well. I also have to say that I loved the mayor. He's only a minor character, but I loved him nonetheless.
I loved the fact that this book used aspects of Mayan prophecy. I must admit that I don't know much about it, but after reading this book, it's clear that the author's done his homework on it. It's such a well written book!
The only fault I found with the book, and this is only a minor fault, is the insta-love between Maria and Alex. Lust I can believe in, but I'm not a believer of love at first sight. That's only a personal gripe though.
Definitely give The 8th Doll by Chris Rakunas a read even if this normally isn't your sort of book.
I'd recommend this book to everyone aged 16+. It's so good!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 23, 2018
If you liked the first 4 films in this series, you'll like this one
Did you watch - and enjoy - the other 4 films in the JURASSIC PARK series? If so, then you'll enjoy the 5th installment, for it is more of the same - man's hubris causes giant animals to run amok and chaos, death and destruction ensues.
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
156Reviews (7 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
May 1, 2020
Have you ever been at a dinner party that has gone on little too long? You were greeted warmly, settled quickly and comfortably, it's been fun, the company has been in fine form, spinning anecdotes that have entertained. But towards the end, you've all run out of things to say, no one quite knows if it's time to leave or not and it's all got a bit awkward.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
I could end my review there, I think you get the point I'm trying to make, but almost the entire cast of this film deserve more, each of them pulling up what would be quite a laborious and dull film into something better, something unworthy of such a cold explanation.
The film starts with Emma (Ana Taylor-Joy) having recently played matchmaker and having had everything very much her way, as the title screen puts it, “Having lived twenty-one years in the world with very little to vex her”, she sees the people around her as entertainment, in the way a child plays with their dolls, marrying them off and assuming that they will live happily ever after. Taylor-Joy is does magnificently in this role, portraying Emma with child-like innocence, while still showing us a character that is all scheming and intelligence, but without any malice, it's a fine line to walk and she does it excellently.
With this in mind she picks up a new friend in Harriet Smith, a young and naive woman played by Mia Goth, a very different role than we've seen her in before, Mia attacks this with a level of enthusiasm and energy that only a few could get away with. Emma intends to marry her friend to Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor), the leader of the local church, whose awkward nature and odd gestures are one of many comedic points of the film, but not all goes to plan.
Director Autumn de Wilde does a wonderful job immersing you into a world of bright pastel colours, handsome characters and sweet lavish deserts, showing you not a period accurate representation, but a view into the way Emma sees the world. This is what the film does best, immersing you into 1800's social networking. Status and decorum is what matters, so that when the minor insults and social faux pas' start coming we understand the gravity of each action, however slight they are.
The film has great talent throughout, their roles could easily come across cliché or bit-part, but are elevated by the skill and subtlety of the people playing them. Johnny Flynn is Mr Knightly, the misunderstood good-guy, but makes it sincere and caring, though we are left to guess why he seems to live with Emma. Bill Nighy is the cranky old father with barely anything to do, but manages to steal entire scenes with just a withering look, and Miranda Hart playing, well, Miranda Hart.
Unfortunately, this all gets dragged down by its excessive length and lack of surprise. At just over two hours run-time even the sharp wit of the earlier scenes start to seem like a distant memory, and as the ending you saw coming from around the hour mark unfolds, you'll start to wonder why it took such a long journey to get there.
Debbiereadsbook (1056 KP) rated Smith's Corner: Delilah & Dallas (The Heartwood Series #1) in Books
Jun 25, 2021
thoroughly enjoyable!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is the first book in the Heartwood series. It's also this author's first step into the world of male/female pairings. She usually writes male/male.
And I have to say, I really rather enjoyed it!
Delilah is young, only 20, but she has a wise head on her shoulders. She knows Dallas is a player, he makes no bones about that, but he also makes no bones about wanting Delilah. And NOT just for a quick tumble. When strange things start happening in Delilah's bakery, Dallas and his brothers step up and the two become close. When Delilah's life is threatened, Dallas loses his head and goes all Alpha male, protect what's mine.
Like I said, first step in this genre for this author, and she kinda nails it! I AM left with questions about Delilah and her mum and sister, but I know what those questions are, and surprisingly, I can voice them! Which for me, makes a change. But I'll come back to those.
Dallas is the youngest Smith brother, and this series revolves around them. They own a bar, and Delilah and her mother own a bakery in the space next door. He lusts after Delilah, and not just in a one-night stand way. When she finally relents and goes on a date with him, Dallas is smitten, and tumbles, head over heels in love. It takes Delilah a little longer, but she falls just as hard!
I could see who the bad guy was, right from when they popped up in the bakery, and that went down much as I expected it to, even if Delilah couldn't see the danger right in front of her.
I loved ALL the brothers, I really did. They all have their quirks, and their personalities, and they all have a story to tell. I mean, Stone and Delilah's best friend, Storm? Their story, well . . .I HOPE their story is going to be explosive, given what goes on here. Levi is already making goo-goo eyes at Layla. Their story is next. Ash, ohhhh Ash has a BIG story to tell, and his book is number 3, and that blurb has set all sorts of questions in my head and I have no idea where that is going! And then there is Fox. I have no clue what's going on there. While he doesn't SAY anything, I feel that his story might be a difficult read!
Back to my questions, which I'm reliably told, may well be answered in book 2, given as that's Layla's book and she holds all the cards. There is much HINTED at, about how and why the girls came to Smith's Corner. But that's all it is, HINTED at! And you know, when you get clues, and you put them together, and you make a picture of your own? I have done that, and I'm not saying what kind of picture I made, but I'm fairly certain, it's going to be worse, MUCH worse.
So hurry, Ms Paton, and release book 2, I need those answers!
A thoroughly enjoyable step out of this author's comfort zone, and a thoroughly enjoyable read.
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is the first book in the Heartwood series. It's also this author's first step into the world of male/female pairings. She usually writes male/male.
And I have to say, I really rather enjoyed it!
Delilah is young, only 20, but she has a wise head on her shoulders. She knows Dallas is a player, he makes no bones about that, but he also makes no bones about wanting Delilah. And NOT just for a quick tumble. When strange things start happening in Delilah's bakery, Dallas and his brothers step up and the two become close. When Delilah's life is threatened, Dallas loses his head and goes all Alpha male, protect what's mine.
Like I said, first step in this genre for this author, and she kinda nails it! I AM left with questions about Delilah and her mum and sister, but I know what those questions are, and surprisingly, I can voice them! Which for me, makes a change. But I'll come back to those.
Dallas is the youngest Smith brother, and this series revolves around them. They own a bar, and Delilah and her mother own a bakery in the space next door. He lusts after Delilah, and not just in a one-night stand way. When she finally relents and goes on a date with him, Dallas is smitten, and tumbles, head over heels in love. It takes Delilah a little longer, but she falls just as hard!
I could see who the bad guy was, right from when they popped up in the bakery, and that went down much as I expected it to, even if Delilah couldn't see the danger right in front of her.
I loved ALL the brothers, I really did. They all have their quirks, and their personalities, and they all have a story to tell. I mean, Stone and Delilah's best friend, Storm? Their story, well . . .I HOPE their story is going to be explosive, given what goes on here. Levi is already making goo-goo eyes at Layla. Their story is next. Ash, ohhhh Ash has a BIG story to tell, and his book is number 3, and that blurb has set all sorts of questions in my head and I have no idea where that is going! And then there is Fox. I have no clue what's going on there. While he doesn't SAY anything, I feel that his story might be a difficult read!
Back to my questions, which I'm reliably told, may well be answered in book 2, given as that's Layla's book and she holds all the cards. There is much HINTED at, about how and why the girls came to Smith's Corner. But that's all it is, HINTED at! And you know, when you get clues, and you put them together, and you make a picture of your own? I have done that, and I'm not saying what kind of picture I made, but I'm fairly certain, it's going to be worse, MUCH worse.
So hurry, Ms Paton, and release book 2, I need those answers!
A thoroughly enjoyable step out of this author's comfort zone, and a thoroughly enjoyable read.
4 solid stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Unique
Writer/Director Edgar Wright has developed into one of the more unique film makers working today with a stylistic look, feel and sound to all of his films. Long known as the Director of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and AT WORLD’S EDGE), Wright started coming into his own with the under-rated SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD and the marvelous BABY DRIVER and with his latest film, the trippy thriller LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, Wright has graduated - in my eyes - as a Director who’s work is “must watch” whenever they come out.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Jul 7, 2022
It's Not Bad...It's Stupid
“It’s not as bad as you heard”, is certainly the very definition of damning something with faint praise, but that is exactly the right thing to say about the 2022 Sony Comic Book Film Adaptation of MORBIUS.
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html