Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The long anticipated “Justice League” has finally arrived finally combining the biggest stars of the DC universe into one film. The proposed film has faced many obstacles on the way to the big screen ranging from script issues, massive reshoots and a change of Director for said reshoots due to a family tragedy that Director Zack Snyder suffered.
The film follows Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Godot), as they look to assemble a team of other gifted individuals to help fight off a pending invasion.
The death of Superman has left a void on the Earth, and this has paved the way for an ancient evil to return as he attempts to conquer the planet after he collects the three needed artifacts that his plan requires.
In a race against time, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), to battle to save the planet. Naturally they battle amongst themselves as well as their massing enemies but ultimately decide on a dangerous plan that can tip the odds in their favor and save the day.
The action in the film is good but it often plays out like a video game. With so many blatantly obvious CGI backgrounds, the movie looked like a video game. There were numerous scenes that looked like they were lifted from Injustice and Injustice 2 that I mused to myself that someone must have used their Power Up for the shot.
Affleck and Gadot are good and work well with one another, but there are some serious casting issues with the film. The biggest for me was Ezra Miller as The Flash. I did not like his effeminate, nerdy, socially awkward, and neurotic and at times cowardly take on the character. This is not the Barry Allen I grew up reading in comics or the one that has been portrayed twice in a much better fashion on television. His comic relief status grew old fast and his character really offered little to the film.
It has been well-documented that Joss Whedon not only handled the rewrites for the film but took over directing duties to complete the film. You can see elements of his humor scattered throughout and the film does move along at a steady pace without dragging.
The biggest issue is that so many of the characters are just stiff and one-dimensional. They really are not overly interesting so it is hard to really connect with them and the tasks they are facing. Unlike Marvel who have excelled with dysfunctional groups who fight amongst themselves as well as the forces of evil, this group seems to be going through the paces rather than being fully engaged with the task at hand and each other.
In the end “Justice League” is better than I expected, and the two bonus scenes in the credits show some interesting potential down the road. As it is, it is flawed entertainment that requires audiences to overlook a lot of issues.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/15/justice-league/
The film follows Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Godot), as they look to assemble a team of other gifted individuals to help fight off a pending invasion.
The death of Superman has left a void on the Earth, and this has paved the way for an ancient evil to return as he attempts to conquer the planet after he collects the three needed artifacts that his plan requires.
In a race against time, Batman and Wonder Woman recruit Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (Ray Fisher), to battle to save the planet. Naturally they battle amongst themselves as well as their massing enemies but ultimately decide on a dangerous plan that can tip the odds in their favor and save the day.
The action in the film is good but it often plays out like a video game. With so many blatantly obvious CGI backgrounds, the movie looked like a video game. There were numerous scenes that looked like they were lifted from Injustice and Injustice 2 that I mused to myself that someone must have used their Power Up for the shot.
Affleck and Gadot are good and work well with one another, but there are some serious casting issues with the film. The biggest for me was Ezra Miller as The Flash. I did not like his effeminate, nerdy, socially awkward, and neurotic and at times cowardly take on the character. This is not the Barry Allen I grew up reading in comics or the one that has been portrayed twice in a much better fashion on television. His comic relief status grew old fast and his character really offered little to the film.
It has been well-documented that Joss Whedon not only handled the rewrites for the film but took over directing duties to complete the film. You can see elements of his humor scattered throughout and the film does move along at a steady pace without dragging.
The biggest issue is that so many of the characters are just stiff and one-dimensional. They really are not overly interesting so it is hard to really connect with them and the tasks they are facing. Unlike Marvel who have excelled with dysfunctional groups who fight amongst themselves as well as the forces of evil, this group seems to be going through the paces rather than being fully engaged with the task at hand and each other.
In the end “Justice League” is better than I expected, and the two bonus scenes in the credits show some interesting potential down the road. As it is, it is flawed entertainment that requires audiences to overlook a lot of issues.
http://sknr.net/2017/11/15/justice-league/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Aug 3, 2019)
WBs second entry into the DCEU is a messy misstep.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's the big one that comic fans have been waiting decades to see come to life on the big screen, the one that was infamously teased in I Am Legend, the one that was going to match The Dark Knight Returns, and it's just oh so dissapointing.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Army of the Dead (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
I can't say that the name Zack Snyder held any pull to watching Army of the Dead. I'm still mad that I watched 8 hours of Justice League. But, I was sold on zombies and the poster, so I gave it a go.
Zombies have taken Las Vegas and the only option to end the danger is to raise the city to the ground. As the countdown to the cities destruction begins, a group of mercenaries are recruited to enter the quarantined zone for a wealthy businessman. Their retrieval mission will end with them getting out of the city safely, or the zombies getting them... whichever comes first.
A heist film with zombies and plenty of action? Three of my favourite things in one. The heist part is solid, it had time constraints to add tension, and the added peril of flesh eating monsters brought a bit of the unknown to each scene in the quarantine zone.
However... the idea doesn't pan out so well in production.
I enjoy Dave Bautista's acting career. Drax is a legend, and his dramatic yet comedic role in My Spy is great. Army of the Dead is a whole new ball game. Scott has the potential to be a really good lead, there's backstory, moments of action that Bautista is made for... but there's that script. There are so many points that diverge from what's happening that he ends up with something that hovers around average.
The humour between Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) and Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer) was fun. It wasn't quite a double act but it did cut through some of the more serious (and clunky) sections. My other call out is Tig Notaro. I loved the attitude she brings to her role, that's the level of sass I aspire to. It wasn't until after my viewing that I realised she had been CGId into the film as a last minute replacement. For the majority of the time I didn't notice, it's just one group shot as they enter Vegas that sticks out like a sore thumb. And with it being so early in proceedings, I was worried that it would be foreshadowing for what was to come.
Thankfully though, the effects were pretty good apart from that (and that tiger). The creatures were impressive and I was pleased to see that they still had the consistency of who the zombie population would be while they were inside the walls. Some of the action sequences may have been a little over the top, but it is a zombie action film so you've got to give it leeway.
I enjoyed Army of the Dead while I was watching it. But it's one of those films that changes when you think about it deeper. The main issue for me is that... this film doesn't need to happen... and a close second is that they attempt to give it a twist that comes to nothing, and because of that, ultimately felt bizarre. I don't think I'd mind watching it again, but I'm not feeling the urge to rush to Netflix.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/army-of-dead-movie-review.html
Zombies have taken Las Vegas and the only option to end the danger is to raise the city to the ground. As the countdown to the cities destruction begins, a group of mercenaries are recruited to enter the quarantined zone for a wealthy businessman. Their retrieval mission will end with them getting out of the city safely, or the zombies getting them... whichever comes first.
A heist film with zombies and plenty of action? Three of my favourite things in one. The heist part is solid, it had time constraints to add tension, and the added peril of flesh eating monsters brought a bit of the unknown to each scene in the quarantine zone.
However... the idea doesn't pan out so well in production.
I enjoy Dave Bautista's acting career. Drax is a legend, and his dramatic yet comedic role in My Spy is great. Army of the Dead is a whole new ball game. Scott has the potential to be a really good lead, there's backstory, moments of action that Bautista is made for... but there's that script. There are so many points that diverge from what's happening that he ends up with something that hovers around average.
The humour between Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) and Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer) was fun. It wasn't quite a double act but it did cut through some of the more serious (and clunky) sections. My other call out is Tig Notaro. I loved the attitude she brings to her role, that's the level of sass I aspire to. It wasn't until after my viewing that I realised she had been CGId into the film as a last minute replacement. For the majority of the time I didn't notice, it's just one group shot as they enter Vegas that sticks out like a sore thumb. And with it being so early in proceedings, I was worried that it would be foreshadowing for what was to come.
Thankfully though, the effects were pretty good apart from that (and that tiger). The creatures were impressive and I was pleased to see that they still had the consistency of who the zombie population would be while they were inside the walls. Some of the action sequences may have been a little over the top, but it is a zombie action film so you've got to give it leeway.
I enjoyed Army of the Dead while I was watching it. But it's one of those films that changes when you think about it deeper. The main issue for me is that... this film doesn't need to happen... and a close second is that they attempt to give it a twist that comes to nothing, and because of that, ultimately felt bizarre. I don't think I'd mind watching it again, but I'm not feeling the urge to rush to Netflix.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/army-of-dead-movie-review.html
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Man of Steel (2013) in Movies
May 21, 2019
"It's not an s on my world it means hope"
Superman's origin has been retold in comics more than any other character. But how do you reboot such a beloved icon in film form without making his origin feel unnecessary to go through again. By handing him over to the masters of all reboots. While developing the story for The Dark Knight Rises, Director Christopher Nolan and writer David S. Goyer developed a new way to bring the man of steel to life. The duo previously saved Batman and made him a cinematic legend again and now they plan to save Superman from uneven sequels and a stale image. And who did they invite to lead this revival? None other than director Zack Snyder, a visual wizard with a lackluster reputation in storytelling thanks to his remake of Dawn of the Dead, 300, Watchmen and Sucker Punch. Now despite some filmmaking stumbles along the way, the trio make for a surprisingly great combination and deliver the modern Superman film we have waited 75 years for with Man of Steel. We are given both Superman and a Clark Kent who doesn't know his place in the world and is coming to terms with how the public perceives him.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
As with all Superman mythology the story begins on Krypton, the planet that's hundreds of thousands of civilized years ahead of Earth. The whole planet is science fiction nirvana. The zooming spaceships, winged beast and advanced technology crafted from liquid metal. For once we experience the entire planet, not just a couple rooms made out of cheap crystal. There's a system of ways things work that has never been fleshed out on screen before. The government, the science and it's culture. At the head of the planet's scientific research is Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and he has discovered proof that may lead to the planet's destruction. But unfortunately his pleas towards his leaders are ignored due to the ongoing civil war with Jor-El's old friend General Zod (Michael Shannon). There's more history to the Jor-El/ Zod dynamic this time around which just enriches their conflict. There are millions of stories concerning Marlon Brando's $3 million dollar slumming in the '78 film. He intentionally mispronounced Krypton, made outrageous production demands and in the end that put him on the cutting room floor for it's sequel. Crowe see's Brando's paycheck acting and raises it with a performance full of gravitas. When conflicts begin to soften and punishments are served, more and more evidence begin to support Jor-El's claims of Krypton's destruction and with time and options exhausted, his final resort is to save his only son Kal-El. Still an infant, Jor-El concludes the only way his son will ever have any chance of life is to be sent to a more primitive alien planet and have a significant advantage over it's species. So he sends him to Earth, where it's sun will grant his body incredible abilities.
Jump 33 years later as the adult Kal-El, now under the name Clark Kent (Henry Cavil) is wandering the world trying to discover his place in it. There are multiple flashbacks to Clark's childhood with his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). Costner gives a heartfelt performance full of warmth as the father concerned with his son's well-being if the world rejects him. If someone with Clark's abilities were to be exposed to the public, it would be one of the biggest moments in human history. His existence alone would make everyone question religion, science and everything they had ever thought about the universe. And Lane strikes quiet, charming notes as the more understanding mother. Throughout his entire life Clark had been using his powers in secret, from saving derrick workers from fires to fighting a massive hurricane in his hometown of Smallville. If there's one word to describe Cavil's performance it's "Modern". He is not the "Aw shucks" farm boy nor is he the angst filled mess many feared he was going to be. There's still a humbleness, a sweetness and a sense of forthrightness to him. And of course he is a perfect physical representation of the character as well. As much as Christopher Reeve's performance still means to audiences today, it has reached a point where it has unfairly overshadowed the character. The idealism of Reeve's Superman isn't relevant today, at least not in the purest sense of the word. Cavil's Superman understands the difficulty of what his powers mean for the world and understands there really isn't anything to smile about.
Of course you can't tell a Superman story without his supporting players at the Daily Planet. Perry White (Laurence Fishburne, in an inspired piece of casting) knows the only way a newspaper could ever have hope at functioning these days is if they had major exclusives to the first alien ever revealed to the masses. Enter Lois Lane (Amy Adams, full of spunk) who has been chasing Clark's story all across the globe for several years. Lois has always been a tricky character to adapt, seeing how it's difficult for audiences to like her if you get it wrong. Can somebody who can't see Superman past a pair of thick glasses really be a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist? Thankfully, this Lois isn't as Shrill as Margot Kidder or as bland as Kate Bosworth in previous versions. Snyder and Adams treat Lois as the talented, dedicated journalist we know she really is by making her active at her profession and not having to prove anything just because she's a woman. The only thing she has to prove are her credentials, which are just as impressive as everything else about her. While some might be disappointed by the lack of romance between the couple, but to be fair, this isn't a Lois and Clark story, it's the story of Clark discovering his place in the world. But the spark between the two of them is certainly present when they first meet. For Clark to go from a lifetime of loneliness to have somebody instantly discover everything about you and admiring all of it is a luxury he has never had before.
Clark couldn't have picked a better time to make his presence known to the world, with General Zod returning to finish what he started. The cinematic Superman villains have created a history of scenery chewing performances dating back to Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. Terrence Stamp was the first actor to portray Zod on film in Superman ll, but despite some memorable dialogue ("Kneel before Zod!") he was still essentially just a typical mustache twirling maniac. Zod this time around is nothing but bold tactics and is fully fledged to preserving his lost race, no matter what the cost. Michael Shannon is nothing but pure, demented megalomania. The only disadvantage Zod possesses though is that his body isn't used to the yellow son and must try and control all his new powers at once. Clark on the other hand, has had a lifetime to perfect his gifts.
Visual aesthetics have leaped skyscrapers since the Donner era. Snyder takes that technological advantage and gives fans what they have dreamed of for years. To put it bluntly, to see Supes punch somebody- really fucking hard! Snyder understands all of Superman's abilities and test them on the grandest scale imaginable. And he does so without resorting to his trademark slow-mo sequences and putting macho fantasies on display. In terms of action alone this is the first time the character has been given justice. Even as bombastic or repetitive it occasionally becomes, it can easily be forgiven because the character has been so overdue for it. It is unfortunate that cinematographer Amir Morki captures it all in a rather unpolished handheld style. But at least Snyder's chaotic direction finally seems to have a sense of aim and isn't relying on green screen to tell his stories. It may have to do with the influence of Nolan producing, but the end result is gloriously flashy, gritty and contains a well needed sense of gravity. And while Man of Steel never reaches the same dizzying heights as Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy, it still preserves and reintroduces it's legendary character in the same respect.
Snyder, Nolan and Goyer certainly have stayed true to the modern lore of Superman by adapting elements of his classic comic stories Birthright, Man for All Seasons, New Krypton and Earth One, and do so without damaging or over-explaining any of it. But if anything it's a science fiction story first then a comic book adaptation, in the vein of such first contact films as the original Day the Earth Stood Still and War of the Worlds. Man of Steel reminds us that Superman is not human, but still represents the best that humanity has to offer. It's the story of fathers, understanding your roots and taking hold of your destiny. It's always been that way for Superman, ever since he was created by young Jewish immigrants Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster.
While the original theme music by John Williams is still the granddaddy of all superhero cinematic anthems, Hans Zimmer still creates a thunderous pulse of a score. Atmospheric, gentle and adrenaline charged, Zimmer accompanies Clark's drifting, the concerns of his parents and Superman's clashes with one perfect note after another.
Christopher Reeve for many people is still going to be the definitive Superman, but that's too be expected. For so long that's all we've had to go on as far as a great man of steel. There are multiple generations separating Reeve and Cavil and multiple generations separating their audiences. Will everyone accept Cavil as this modern Superman that understands today's humanity? As with Batman Begins, the conclusion doesn't technically set itself up for a sequel but it establishes an iconic part of it's universe in a nice wink that makes you want to see more of it. It isn't quite perfect, but this universe certainly deserved to grow. Because unlike what occurred in 2006, this time Superman really has returned.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Apr 9, 2019 (Updated Apr 9, 2019)
Good Fun
Being the big ol' geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam is an exception to this, - other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC's lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, - I don't know much about the character. Watching Shazam, I was more so reminded of a Mark Millar comic called Superior, which bears multiple plot similarities to Shazam, to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and I would see it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie's villain and Zachary Levi did a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer's character was a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX were on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There was also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shone through the entire thing.
My biggest issue with the movie was Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he's not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He came across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi came across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy was prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character was entirely broken and it was as if they were just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that were just never in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines while believably playing the same character.
Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don't expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn't anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I was left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the theatre that the film felt more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles.
Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don't think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. I am glad that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they have dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder and they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel's footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster. This move seems to be for the best and is what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at this point.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When I first heard that Warner Bros. was planning a series of films based on the classic DC Comics characters akin to what Marvel has successfully done, I was intrigued with the possibilities. With the release of Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice, we get the first look into that universe and I have to say it is one that has more than a few stumbles.
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
The film follows Superman (Henry Cavill), as he deals with a plot that is set to discredit him and make the people of the world fearful of him and his abilities.
One person affected by this is Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), who has seen firsthand the devastation that Superman is capable of after seeing the city practically destroyed in the events that culminated in “Superman: Man of Steel”.
Wayne has devised a plan for his alter-ego Batman to put a stop to Superman before he can become an even greater threat to the public and despite the urgings of his butler Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Batman continues with his plan.
As if this was not enough for Superman to contend with, neurotic tech giant Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), has decided to manipulate events into a larger and even more dangerous game as he has set his sights clearly on Superman but would also love to see Batman removed in the process.
One would think that with a premise such as this it would be a non-stop action fest that would thrill fans from start to finish. Sadly this is not the case. The first hour and change of the film plods along with little action and we get a cast, some of whom I believe are badly miscast, plodding along and blandly brooding. The characters are so unlikeable that I found myself not caring for them or their fates and was shocked how a film with so much potential and a reported $250 million budget could be so under-whelming.
The final part of the film is non-stop action but Director Zack Snyder allows his film to become awash in all the Hollywood action film stereotypes. I thought I was watching an over-the-top special effects reel as all of the action unfolded, it was very hard to get overly thrilled about it despite the skill that went into crafting it.
Affleck does a passable job in the role and hopefully as he has more outings he will grow on me, but I just never really embraced him in the part. His Batman acts out of character in many sequences as he jumps to an extreme conclusion without taking the steps in between. Eisenberg is so neurotic and annoying that you just want to slap him. He is so difficult to watch. The biggest issue I have is with Cavill. He is just so bland and uninteresting to me as Superman. Yes, I know it is unfair to compare him to Christopher Reeves, but even Brandon Routh did a more acceptable portrayal of Superman. He just is not very interesting to watch in the role, with his monotone delivery and lack of facial expressions. I want heroes that I can get behind and care about, not one-dimensional characters that do little to generate my interest and sympathy.
The most telling thing for me was for an audience that was so keyed up at the start of the film, they were pretty silent for most of it, save for when a certain character appeared and even at the end of the film, offered only a small round of applause.
The film did try to be epic in scale and it is clear that this is just the opening round of a much larger series, but for now, I could not help but feel disappointed with the result and I would be shocked if the next offerings from Marvel are not considerably better than this film.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/23/81808/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Snyder Cut sets up so much for future Justice League adventures, and those things would have been good... but the film absolutely didn't need to be this long to still do that, some of the scenes were so drawn out that it became painful. (I like Jason Momoa getting hit with buckets of water as much as the next person, but even I didn't need that full scene of him standing on the dock in the waves. At one point I wondered if they'd shot extra footage for an aftershave commercial.)
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
Overall it had a much more serious tone to it, and I don't mind that in a superhero film, but then it goes and throws in the petshop/hotdog scene. I feel like it was meant to be funny, but almost everything about it stuck out like a sore thumb in comparison to the rest of the film. I saw someone say they thought this version of the film was funnier in general compared to the first, I'm not sure we watched the same movie.
If you read my reviews you'll be aware of my feelings on "bizarre" ratios. In things like The Lighthouse I can see why they go with certain aspect ratios, but unless they're being shown on a screen that is that size they're really not for me, it's a distraction. This is a very personal feeling of course, there are a lot of people who like the aesthetics and style choices around this sort of thing. For me though, I want that full screen experience, especially with this sort of blockbuster.
I'm one of these strange people that likes most superhero movies, I liked the various Fantastic Fours, even Green Lantern... and I enjoyed the original Justice League cut. I gave it 4/5. And while seeing everything that was cut out of it makes me feel like we were robbed, I still enjoyed that movie on a rewatch. I'm unlikely to sit through the epic version again by choice, whereas I probably would rewatch the first one.
I always find it a little baffling when it comes to DC and Marvel. For me, Marvel always got the films right, but the TV shows were just okay. And DC always got the TV shows right and their films were okay. (When I'm saying okay I mean they're watchable but I wouldn't need to rush to rewatch them.) That felt like something that was on the change. Wonder Woman, Aquaman and Shazam, all seemed to find a level that worked in a way I hadn't felt about their films in a while. I wanted to see them again, they mixed dramatic and fun in a way that Marvel have always been able to nail. But while this version of Justice League goes out and does its own thing, and that's perfectly acceptable, the tone felt wrong for the set of characters that were brought together... and when you put all the little niggles together from across the whole thing it leaves me with a film I'd be fine without.
Perhaps my rating of this is a little unfair, it has a lot of things I like in it after all. The negatives outweighed the bad in the end though, and as much as I like the Cyborg, Flash and Aquaman development, they wouldn't compel me to sit through it again. Not even in chunks.
Because this had a lot of different things to talk about it wasn't one of my usual reviews, you can find my full review here: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-movie.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
Batfleck (1 more)
It's every comic fan's childhood dream
Sloppy editing (2 more)
Bad performances
Poor script
A Whole Mess Of Awesome
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, if you are reading this I assume you have at least read a few other reviews of the movie, as it is all that anyone is talking about online at the minute, so what is left to say I hear you ask? Well first off I’ll give you some context, for the last three years I have been reading and collecting comics to an obsessive level and it is due to this movie. I have always been a superhero fan (especially Batman,) and I had read some comics in the past, but when this movie was announced at San Diego Comic-Con in 2013, (3 years ago!!) I was so hyped and I decided that I had to read the comic that this film was taking inspiration from. So I went to my local A1 Comics and bought The Dark Knight Returns, which underwhelmed me but that’s another story. Since then I have become a huge comic book fan and that is thanks to this movie. Seriously what was not to like here, it would have been so difficult to get this wrong, it’s Batman fighting Superman, how amazing is it that this actually happened? And yet they still managed to fuck it up…
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Do you read? You will. And then realise how superior the comic that this is based on is to the actual movie itself, (and I’m not even a massive fan of the comic.)
I saw 10 Cloverfield Lane last week and while that movie wasn’t perfect, what made that a great movie is exactly what makes BvS a subpar movie. 10CL had a small team of people working on a restrictive budget, so every aspect of the movie was scrutinised and perfected to make up the end product and that attention to detail really paid off. BvS had a huge budget and a massive team of people working on it and I think that is what gives the movie it’s unfocused and sloppy feel. The script is a mess, there are clearly scenes cut, the editing is jarring, not all of the performances were up to scratch and while the imagery and visuals are incredible, the best way to describe this movie is all style and no substance. I like Zack Snyder, I love his Watchmen movie, I like 300 and I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I can’t help but feel that this is his fault. His decision to make years of comic book stories into one two and a half hour movie honestly baffles me. The events of this movie should have taken place over at least three movies, which I will discuss more in the spoiler section of this review, so stick around for that if you have seen the movie already. This movie really is all over the place and the pace and tone are random at best and if you have seen the trailers then you have essentially seen the movie. Let’s talk about the best part of the movie, which is quite easily Ben Affleck’s Batman and Jeremy Irons’ Alfred. Seeing the two characters and their chemistry are worth the ticket price of the film alone. This is probably the most faithful to the source material Batman that we have had on the big screen to date, except for one pretty major change. Batman in DoJ is pretty much Punisher in a cowl. During the Batmobile chase (which was really fucking awesome by the way,) he questionably kills some goons. I mean, some of them could have survived like, if they had Wolverine’s healing powers I guess? But then there is that badass warehouse scene that we see in the trailers and during that he near enough shoots some guys himself. If you can get over this and see this as an alternate version of Batman you should be able to appreciate Affleck’s performance though, which by the way is amazing, he knocks it out of the park. I would have liked some kind of reference to it, even a scene where he discusses breaking his code with Alfred, just a few lines would have made me get on board with this version of the character a lot quicker. Critics have been calling Henry Cavil’s Superman performance wooden, but I think that is too harsh, he is perfectly serviceable but he isn’t going to be praised for his memorable performance either. Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman is badass, my only complaint is that she isn’t in the movie enough as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg is the stand out worst performance in the movie. It isn’t necessarily a bad performance, it just does not fit that character at all. He was truly miscast here, if they had cast him as Riddler in the Batman solo movie and he put in this performance I would be praising him like mad. Lex Luthor shouldn’t be crazy on a surface level, he should be a respectable businessman and an intellectual force to be reckoned with and he will go out of his way to ensure that this is what everyone sees him as, it is only ever the people closest to him that that he allows to see him crack. He certainly shouldn’t be making strange noises and gestures like someone with OCD or a mental issue. Also Doomsday is silly and is just shoehorned in at the end for the sake of giving the trinity and enemy to battle against.
Do you pee? You will. After sitting though near three hours of this garbage.
So to give my overall opinion before I get into spoilers, I will say that I enjoyed this movie better than Man of Steel, but only slightly and I dislike it for a lot of the same reasons. Just like Man of Steel there are parts of this movie that I adored and parts that I hated. Mixed emotions is an understatement. In my mind any movie above a 7 is a great movie and unfortunately I can’t call this a great movie. I fully believe that everyone should see this movie and form their own opinion, especially since reactions have been so mixed, but I felt that it simply didn’t live up to the hype that it set for itself and I feel like Zack Snyder may be doing more harm than good setting up the DCU. 6.5/10.
Do you see? You will. Or at least you better have seen it by now because I am about to spoil the shit out of the whole movie.
Like I said earlier, the events of the movie really should have been split across several movies and explored more rather than rushed through at a breakneck speed. We should have had a whole movie on Batman V Superman, the conflict ideals between them and the discussion of whether or not this world needs a Superman. Then we should have had a movie just based on the dawn of the justice league, with Batman and Superman eventually understanding each other and becoming friends and with way more scenes with Wonder Woman and a proper introduction to the other characters rather than the literal plot device USB stick we got in BvS. Then we should have had a few Justice League movies and once Superman was an established character within the universe, they should have killed him off then and did the Death and Return of Superman story, not in this one where Batman and Wonder Woman hardly know him and the public still don’t know whether he is good or bad. Also if Batman kills now, what reason is there for the Joker to still be alive? The whole point of their relationship is that Batman won’t kill Joker because of his code and Joker won’t kill Batman because he loves fighting him, but if Batman has no code and he has been Batman for years then he really should have killed Joker a long time ago. I did enjoy Batfleck and I am very much looking forward to his solo Batman movie, but BvS is rushed and sloppy. So I’ve said my piece, now let the fanboy hate commence.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
One of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. (8 more)
Awesome production design.
Brilliant direction.
Beautiful cinematography.
Solid performances.
Incredible SFX.
Great score.
Good use of lighting.
Well written script and dialogue.
Villeneuve Strikes Gold Yet Again
Wow, this movie is a feast for your eyeballs. I won't go on about the visuals too much, as I'm sure that you have already heard how good looking this movie is, all I'll say is this; the movie deserves to be seen in the biggest screen possible. What is even better though, is unlike a Zack Snyder film, Blade Runner 2049 has more to it than just surface level, pretty visuals.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.