Search
Search results
Fred (860 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Not such a wonder
Contains spoilers, click to show
There are some good scenes in WW84. The beginning scene, followed by the mall scene, both great scenes. The highway scene, the invisible jet scene, very cool. But scenes don't make a movie. Well, they do, but you know what I mean. A few good scenes doesn't make a movie good. The movie is very slow, badly paced & the story, quite frankly, stinks.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
Again, Wonder Woman is pitted against a villain that is boring. He is played very well by the Mandolorian, Pedro Pascal. But the character is weak. We also have Kristen Wiig as the Cheetah, I guess. She's just an 80s chick until the very end, when she is turned into a cheetah woman & we're "treated" to a CGI fight, that is so dark & so badly directed, you'll struggle to see anything going on or get a good look at Cheetah, except for the bad make-up job on Wiig's face. Speaking of Wiig, she's okay, but nothing special.
I know I'm in the minority, but I don't find Gal Gadot a very good Wonder Woman. She's pretty, she kicks ass, but her acting is not very good. The character is dull. And I find the way her accent is there one minute & gone the next annoying. I laughed out loud when she tells the guy at the end that she likes his Auschwitz (outfit). She's easily the weakest character in the film. And like the first movie, we're spending most of the time wanting to see Wonder Woman on screen instead of Diana.
Chris Pine is great, as always & the reverse "seeing new things" scenes as he's introduced to the 80s are as great as they were in the first movie when Diana is shown new things.
But the real problem of the film is the story. Wonder Woman saves the day by asking people to give up their wishes. Nice dream, but would never happen. We know the world is full of scumbags that would never give up power, or money or anything for anyone else. WW talks to us, the audience & makes a plea that would flop just as much as this film. Throw in the 2 & a half hour runtime, far too long and I found myself bored for most of it. Not every superhero movie has to be so long. And instead of spending time on character & story development, they wasted it on scenes that did nothing to advance the plot.
Oh, stay tuned for the mid-credit scene. It's okay & worth it.
David McK (3770 KP) rated Excalibur: The Legend of King Arthur in Books
Jan 30, 2019
If I'm honest, I'm not really that much of a graphic novel/comic book kinda guy: I usually prefer to let my imagination do the work rather than have it 'shown' to me (which is also why I don't always like TV/movie adaptations).
Having said that, I thought I would give this one a go anyway. A retelling of the Arthurian legend, this takes in pretty much all the main characters and events of that legend, but not necessarily all how I was familiar with them (it involves the seelie/unseelie (i.e. faeries) which I don't remember ever having been part of the legend before).
Starting with Arthur's conception and ending with his 'death' at Badon Hill, the novel also glosses over some of the less savory actions that Arthur is supposed to have carried out (ref Tristan and Isolde).
An OK read, and while yes, I may pick up some of the others in the series, this failed to really change my perception of graphic novels as a whole.
Having said that, I thought I would give this one a go anyway. A retelling of the Arthurian legend, this takes in pretty much all the main characters and events of that legend, but not necessarily all how I was familiar with them (it involves the seelie/unseelie (i.e. faeries) which I don't remember ever having been part of the legend before).
Starting with Arthur's conception and ending with his 'death' at Badon Hill, the novel also glosses over some of the less savory actions that Arthur is supposed to have carried out (ref Tristan and Isolde).
An OK read, and while yes, I may pick up some of the others in the series, this failed to really change my perception of graphic novels as a whole.
Rhett Reese recommended Shakespeare in Love (1998) in Movies (curated)
Erika (17789 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
May 28, 2018 (Updated May 28, 2018)
I think I liked this film, I'll definitely have to see it at least once more to form a full opinion. But, for now:
The plot was engaging, but fairly predictable. It did a good job of checking off the boxes, how Han met Chewie, the Kessel Run, and winning the ship from Lando.
I don't think I can currently comment on Alden's Han, I'll definitely need to see it again. I don't think he was bad, but he needed to make the character his own. I'm not sure he really had a choice in that though.
I do take a slight issue with Donald Glover's Lando. I'm not particularly a Lando fan, I don't feel one way or another about him. Lando was schmaltzy, corny, and I don't need a stand alone Lando movie.
I think Ron Howard did a good job with fixing the film. And I liked that he threw his bro in as a cameo.
Also, the appearance of ... that character... great.
The plot was engaging, but fairly predictable. It did a good job of checking off the boxes, how Han met Chewie, the Kessel Run, and winning the ship from Lando.
I don't think I can currently comment on Alden's Han, I'll definitely need to see it again. I don't think he was bad, but he needed to make the character his own. I'm not sure he really had a choice in that though.
I do take a slight issue with Donald Glover's Lando. I'm not particularly a Lando fan, I don't feel one way or another about him. Lando was schmaltzy, corny, and I don't need a stand alone Lando movie.
I think Ron Howard did a good job with fixing the film. And I liked that he threw his bro in as a cameo.
Also, the appearance of ... that character... great.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Pet Sematary (1989) in Movies
Oct 19, 2018
A good adaptation
Whilst this isn’t one of the best Stephen King adaptations, it’s a lot better than expected.
This stays very true to the original book. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, but there was nothing in this that stood out as being different, which is always good news. This is a typical late 80s film, with some very weak performances and feels very much like a made for TV movie. That said, a lot of the physical effects and make up were very impressively done and the film is a lot bloodier than i ever would’ve expected. There are also some very bad special effects, but fortunately these are few and far between. Watching this has made me intrigued to see how the new adaptation turns out - if they manage to stay faithfully to the story but with a 21st century update on the effects, it should really be one to watch.
This stays very true to the original book. It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, but there was nothing in this that stood out as being different, which is always good news. This is a typical late 80s film, with some very weak performances and feels very much like a made for TV movie. That said, a lot of the physical effects and make up were very impressively done and the film is a lot bloodier than i ever would’ve expected. There are also some very bad special effects, but fortunately these are few and far between. Watching this has made me intrigued to see how the new adaptation turns out - if they manage to stay faithfully to the story but with a 21st century update on the effects, it should really be one to watch.
Postcards from the Cinema
Book
Postcards from the Cinema is the book Serge Daney, one of the greatest of film critics, never wrote....
Moon Country
Book
Fifteen years ago, Tommy Hunter committed a terrible crime. Now pursued by his own bad memories and...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Wailing (2016) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Babe, are you okay? You haven't even touched your rotting deer carcass. Better than 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘝𝘝𝘪𝘵𝘤𝘩 - A weird, absolute gonzo ripper of a ghost movie bursting at the seams with occult gibberish that shrieks with the agonizing intensity of a dying animal and wraps up with one of the most genius conclusions of the 2010s decade. On top of all that it's also chock full of exposed-nerve performances, amazing cinematography, and all these dazzlingly staged setpieces (highlights include the multiple rituals that are thrilling as *hell* and the literally dizzying chase sequence in the cliffside woods). Can't really say this wastes a minute of its 156 minute runtime - starting by very engagingly stringing along a deceitfully simple mystery which gradually morphs into a messy blast of at least three different genres all handled with originality and a wicked sense of inertia - with one of the best child performances ever translated to film. One of the few "begs for a rewatch" movies that actually warrants one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
David McK (3770 KP) rated Alien: River of Pain in Books
Jul 21, 2019
The second (or is it third? Audible has it 2nd, but I've also seen it called #3? Maybe 3rd produced, but 2nd set?) of - currently - 3 canon Alien novels, this takes part largely alongside the early parts of the movie Aliens, cutting back and forth between Ripley and the inhabitants of the colony of Hadley's Hope.
Remember I said alongside the start of Aliens? To put that into context, this is - largely - filling in the gaps in the movie, between the point at which Ripley's escape pod is picked up, and the arrival of the Marines (and Ripley, and Burke) to that colony, after all communication with it is lost. As such, there are several scenes in here which are lifted straight from that movie, with some - slightly - expanded upon.
It also gives a reason why Newt is the only survivor found hiding in the air-ducts ("They mostly come at night. Mostly"), why there's Alien Face-huggers in jars in the colony, why the marines are so hyped up when we first meet them in the film (they're just back from R&R), and even why Newt's family went out prospecting in the first place.
Worth a read/listen? Yes, although I have to say that there are elements of this that reminded me quite a bit of the 90s comic/novel "Aliens: Nightmare Asylum" - especially in some of the characters - and that it just seems weird, now, that the presence of Marines on the planetoid, pre Ripley and co, are never mentioned at all!
Remember I said alongside the start of Aliens? To put that into context, this is - largely - filling in the gaps in the movie, between the point at which Ripley's escape pod is picked up, and the arrival of the Marines (and Ripley, and Burke) to that colony, after all communication with it is lost. As such, there are several scenes in here which are lifted straight from that movie, with some - slightly - expanded upon.
It also gives a reason why Newt is the only survivor found hiding in the air-ducts ("They mostly come at night. Mostly"), why there's Alien Face-huggers in jars in the colony, why the marines are so hyped up when we first meet them in the film (they're just back from R&R), and even why Newt's family went out prospecting in the first place.
Worth a read/listen? Yes, although I have to say that there are elements of this that reminded me quite a bit of the 90s comic/novel "Aliens: Nightmare Asylum" - especially in some of the characters - and that it just seems weird, now, that the presence of Marines on the planetoid, pre Ripley and co, are never mentioned at all!