Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Eye In The Sky (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An exceptional look at warfare
Warfare is incredibly hard to depict well on screen. The brutality of conflict as well as the accuracy of technologies used is something very rarely achieved in the cinema due to the constant need to turn a profit and please audiences.
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
After American Sniper rocked the early part of 2015, there were numerous films in the genre greenlit soon after. Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky is one. But is it as good as American Sniper? And, more importantly, does it show an accurate depiction of modern conflict?
Eye in the Sky follows the tough choices that have to be made by politicians and military personnel in the fight against modern-day terrorism. Starring an arresting Helen Mirren as Colonel Powell, who leads a group of soldiers in their efforts to thwart a terrorist attack in Nairobi, Kenya.
Alongside her for the journey is the late Alan Rickman, in one of his final screen roles, as General Benson – the man who has to please the more political side of the divide. The film also stars Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul as a US drone pilot, tasked with delivering a fatal strike on a terrorist cell.
Eye in the Sky, despite its ridiculous name, is one of the freshest and most involving war films in recent times. This is even more astounding considering director Gavin Hood’s recent CV includes the lambasted X-Men Origins: Wolverine and commercial failure Ender’s Game.
This is a taut and well-shot action thriller with an unusually emotional heart at its centre. Our characters continuously grapple with the inevitable “collateral damage” that comes with firing a missile from 22,000ft in the air and we, as the audience share in each of their difficult decisions.
Helen Mirren provides one of her best performances in years and the wonderful Alan Rickman gives us yet more proof of what made him such an exceptional actor – you simply cannot take your eyes of the screen when he is on it. Aaron Paul is also brilliant, with the heart-breaking decisions he is forced to make reflected in his facial expressions. His tears speak louder than any script could ever rustle up.
It’s true that the action is kept to a minimum; this is no Michael Bay picture, but the boardroom setting and confines of the drone pilot room are more than a match for needless explosions as it all feels grounded in reality – despite the fact that some of the intelligence equipment isn’t in the field yet.
Overall, Eye in the Sky is an exceptional piece of film-making with real emotional punch. This is something normally reserved for other genres but it pays of well in this highly intelligent and fantastically acted thriller. Unfortunately, as is the case with many movies in between release schedules of bigger features, it will no doubt slip under the radar slightly.
That’s a shame, as there’s something truly special here and there’s no doubt it is one of the best films released in the last twelve months.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/23/an-exceptional-look-at-warfare-eye-in-the-sky-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
ZALORA - Fashion Shopping
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
ASIA'S ONLINE FASHION DESTINATION Cash on Delivery option with a Free and Easy Returns within 30...
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Avengers West Coast: Darker than Scarlet in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I took advantage of some great Marvel sales on Comixology the end of last month. It was a great opportunity to revisit HOUSE OF M (which I had own the TPB of it when still owned the physical copies, instead of the digital ones I now favor). I bought that one, WCA: DARKER THAN SCARLET, X-MEN: DECIMATION - SON OF M, DECIMATION: HOUSE OF M - THE DAY AFTER, and AVENGERS: THE CHILDREN'S CRUSADE. I started WCA: DTS the end of last week, finishing it up today.
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
First, I just want to open with what a refreshing breath it was to return to late 1989 for this read. It was a simpler time, in which you could tell the villains from the heroes, where heroes actually did <b>good things</b> on account of, you know, them being heroes and all, and where villains committed actual <i>dirty deeds</i>! And it was also a time when Marvel still understood that publishing good comic books didn't mean dovetailing each and every event into another event six months later, followed by *another* event six months <after> the first two!
One of the big draws for this trade was getting to see John Byrne back when he was totally on his game (not that he has ever been off his game). Seriously, it was worth it just to see him draw the 'M' fam again: Magneto, Scarlet With and Quicksilver! So, so good! And best of all? The art was actually drawn on paper, with inks, no computer aiding at that point in comic publishing!
And while his style was somewhat different that Byrne's, Paul Ryan did an equally great job as the penciller for the remainder of the story's last three issues. I had forgotten how I much I had liked his art back in the day, stirring up fond memories of his run as penciller on IRON MAN, also in the late 80s. #goodtimes
In addition to handling the art chores, Byrne also provided the writing. Equally admirable is the way Roy Thomas, and his wife Dann, took over the writing beginning with Issue #60, providing a seamless transition from Byrne. Both writers provided a fun sense, even when the danger was mounting against them, of the Avengers.
So, as much as I loved this trade, I also feel the need to let you all know the dialogue at points felt a little clunky, maybe a little dated. However, it was nothing that took away from my overall enjoyment of this volume. At points where the dialogue didn't feel all that good, I just went and re-read it with names, or words, that fit better. Again, nothing that should diminish the fun factor here, unless you are one of <i>those kind</i> of comic readers!
In concluding, I just want to say this was a good read. It is especially important, perhaps even so far as dubbing it "required reading", before starting HOUSE OF M. In an age where the fun has diminished greatly in the superhero comics, it is good to have something like this to read, which helps us escape the "doom 'n goom" of this so un-fun era!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018 (Updated May 18, 2018)
Some razor sharp lines of dialogue (2 more)
Clever direction
Extremely funny from start to finish
The Merc With A Mouth Is Back
Contains spoilers, click to show
Deadpool 2 is the kind of sequel that knows exactly what it is. It doesn't pretend to be anything original and it's main focus is getting a laugh out of it's audience over anything else. It succeeds greatly at this with the film being hilarious throughout and it comes very close to being as funny as it's predecessor, it just doesn't quite get there. I think that the main reason for this is because it chooses to focus more on a story than the last one did and through that, the humour loses some of the momentum that it builds up.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Okay, spoilers from here on out. If you haven't seen it yet, why the hell not? Go to the cinema right now.
Although the first movies laughs have better momentum, an argument could be made for this movie's individual lines being funnier. My particular favourite was the jab Deadpool has at his creator Rob Liefeld for not being able to draw feet properly in his comics.
I loved how they chose to show off Domino's powers. Her power of 'luck,' could have came across really lame onscreen, but David Leitch's fantastic direction helped it to come across brilliantly. I also loved the cameos, from the room full of X-Men, to Brad Pitt as the Vanisher.
When they killed Vanessa at the start of the movie, I was disappointed as I was looking forward to seeing her character develop in this movie and I felt like just killing her off to give Deadpool motivation for his arc in the movie was pretty lazy. Then, they immediately rectified it with the hilarious Bond-esque opening title sequence. Then I thought that they were going to make Vanessa become Death, who is Deadpool's love interest in the comics because he has so many encounters with her, but at the end of the movie we see Deadpool going back in time to reverse her death from happening, which also sort of negates a lot of the emotional beats that the movie surprisingly managed to hit during it's finale.
The Juggernaught is the movie's surprise villain and while it is nice to see him in his comic accurate form, the CGI used is really cartoony and even hard to swallow in a surreal superhero movie like this one.
However, that's not why anybody watches a Deadpool movie. If I was looking for deep, meaningful character arcs and realistic CGI, there are a ton of other movies for that. Deadpool is there to make you laugh and there is no doubt that it succeeds at that.
There are some comedic moments that feel oddly dated, like the constant references to dubstep for example and I feel like they missed a trick not bringing up the fact that the director was swapped out during the film's production or the real life scandals involving TJ Miller, but every joke earns at least a chuckle, which justifies it's place in the film. It may not as quite as novel because we have seen it before, but there are plenty of scenes in here that will have you laughing out loud in the cinema and fans of the character will not be disappointed.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel films have become a staple for any movie fan’s diet over the past few years. We’ve had some bloody fantastic ones; Spiderman 2, Iron Man and the second X-Men to name a few; and we’ve had some pretty rubbish ones, Hulk, The Fantastic Four and Spiderman 3 are ones that spring to mind.
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Here we stand, two years before the release of the much anticipated Avengers movie and the latest offering from Marvel blasts onto our screens: Thor, but is it a success?
Kenneth ‘Thespian’ Brannagh helms this more unknown superhero flick and surprisingly with his track record of Shakespearean cinema, makes one hell of a film.
Chris Hemsworth from Home & Away stars as the Viking god himself and is the perfect choice for the role; I can’t think of anyone better suited to playing him. 6 foot 6 with blonde hair and blue eyes, come on; it can’t just be a coincidence surely? Natalie Portman (Black Swan) and Stellen Skarsgard (Mamma Mia) also star but are unfortunately largely forgettable; Portman certainly won’t be receiving an Oscar for her performance here.
Thor takes place in the fictional realm of Asgard, ruled by an ill looking, but perfect as usual Anthony Hopkins as King Odin. Of course Asgard is created via special effects and these are flawless; from the rainbow bridge that connects that world to Earth, to the sweeping shots of the enemy Frost Giant’s home. It is here, in this beautiful place that Thor really shines, the story is dense and succinct with beautiful performances from all
the actors. The sheer scope of the film is literally immense and this could’ve dwarfed the characters, but thankfully it doesn’t.
Unfortunately, Thor’s banishment to Earth for reckless behaviour isn’t as exciting and these portions of the film feel a little flat in comparison to the bright lights of Asgard. Thankfully, Hemsworth makes sure that the usual Marvel humour is included which stops these scenes from being a complete failure. Portman and Skarsgard feel lost next to Hemsworth’s fantastic characterisation which is unfortunate as they have both proved themselves to be brilliant actors.
The constant tie-in’s with the upcoming Avengers film are shameless and an obvious marketing probe but they do little to detract from the film itself, the inclusion of S.H.I.E.L.D doesn’t feel as laboured as it could have done and thankfully they play a good part in the film – even if it is in the less interesting Earth scenes.
Thor is a film as mighty as the legendary hammer its title character uses; it’s loud, occasionally obnoxious and unashamedly reliant on special effects, more-so than any other Marvel film, but this time, it works.
Kenneth Brannagh’s influence is apparent from the off, with the Shakespearean narrative at the beginning being a real highlight of the film. Thankfully, the highlights don’t stop there and apart from a few lapses in judgement, the film steamrolls itself to a decent, if little underwhelming climax.
Overall, Thor is fabulous, a really good attempt at creating a brilliant film from a rather unknown superhero. If Iron Man hadn’t been released, it would most definitely be the best of the Marvel films to date, as a result, it comes a really close second. A real treat!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/05/19/thor-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Marvel Meets Inception
Let’s face it; Marvel rarely gets it wrong when it comes to crafting cracking superhero blockbusters. Sure, Avengers: Age of Ultron was an overstuffed mess but it had ambition and Iron Man 2 was fine when not compared to its predecessor.
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/
Now, one of the biggest film studios in the world takes on its biggest gamble yet – more so than Guardians of the Galaxy was, and that’s saying something! But does Doctor Strange hit all the right notes or are we looking at Marvel’s first true dog’s dinner?
Dr. Stephen Strange’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life changes after a car accident robs him of the use of his hands. When traditional medicine fails him, he looks for healing, and hope, in a mysterious enclave. He quickly learns that the enclave is at the front line of a battle against unseen dark forces bent on destroying reality. Before long, Strange is forced to choose between his life of fortune and status or leave it all behind to defend the world as the most powerful sorcerer in existence.
Harry Potter meets Inception as director Scott Derrickson’s ambitious vision for the Marvel comic comes to life on screen. It’s one of the best looking films in the studio’s catalogue, and one that’s definitely worth paying the extra dosh for the 3D version.
When it comes to acting, the cast is, on the whole, very good. Tilda Swinton is perhaps the best character in the entire film as the ‘Ancient One’. She’s an incredible actress given the right material and despite being thinly written, she shines in this intriguing role. The rest of the cast, including Benedict Wong, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Rachel McAdams are poorly realised and make no measurable impact on the final cut.
Mads Mikkelsen’s portrayal of Kaecilius, the film’s main antagonist, is good but Marvel continuously struggle to create interesting villains and unfortunately, Mikkelsen falls into that pot, though he’s not quite as bad as Oscar Issac’s Apocalypse from this year’s X-Men entry. Let’s hope Mikkelsen is given more time to shine in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story in December.
Assessing Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as the titular character is a little more difficult. On the one hand, he plays the deeply unlikeable Stephen Strange with the same class he brings to all his other personas; and then on the other, he seems at odds with Marvel’s global universe – the comedic elements almost feeling a little too forced, that is, in comparison to Chris Hemsworth’s mighty Thor or Paul Rudd’s sarcastic Ant-Man.
Luckily, the engaging special effects and magical story ensure Doctor Strange’s negatives are kept few and far between. Superhero films are beginning to grow a little tiresome with at least six being released this year alone, but the unique plot to this one makes certain you won’t have seen anything like it in the genre before.
Overall, Doctor Strange is a pleasing addition to the MCU, though one that isn’t quite as special as Guardians of the Galaxy was in 2014. It’s nice to have yet another character to join the growing list of Avengers but it’ll take another solo outing for Benedict Cumberbatch’s surgeon to make any sort of lasting impact.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/10/27/marvel-meets-inception-doctor-strange-review/