Search
Search results

Illeana Douglas recommended Amarcord (1973) in Movies (curated)

Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)

Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rocky Balboa (2006) in Movies
Jan 28, 2019
Surprisingly Good
I think I’ve stayed away from this movie for so long because I expected it to be garbage. I mean, let’s be adult about this, Rocky V was no picnic. I was done with Rocky. Until I saw the trailer for Creed. It was at that moment that I decided to give things another go. Yes, the boxer we all know and love Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) is back at it in Rocky Balboa facing off against his first (and hopefully last) opponent since Drago.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Two things really grabbed me as the movie opens. I loved the beautiful shots of Philadelphia at the start. The city plays a huge role in Rocky’s character development and these shots helped get me in tune with the heart of what the city is all about. I also appreciated the first scene between Rocky and his son Rocky Jr. (Milo Ventimiglia) depicting their strained relationship since Adrian’s death. It’s an awkward scene that makes you sympathize with where Rocky is in his life.
How did he get to this point? It’s seem like he’s lost so much, yet he’s still that gentle character from the 70’s we fell in love with. Seeing this scene was enough to tell me this film would take a lot different approach than the previous movies.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rocky’s older and not at the top of his game like he was when he took on Clubber Lang (what a name!). Yet he still found a way to get me out of my chair as he did in previous movies. The main bout gets pretty intense in spots as you root for the Italian Stallion to knock some sense into the new kid on the block. The conflict extends beyond the ring as well as Rocky tries to help people from his neighborhood while maintaining close relationships with family members Paulie (Burt Young) and Rocky Jr. On the surface he’s a hero, but underneath his life is in shambles. As an audience, we find ourselves rallying behind Rocky as we’ve done in all the others movies past.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 7
Compared to other films, it doesn’t quite have the same memorability as classic ones I’ve seen, but succeeds in giving us a reason to cheer and a reason to feel. Rocky Balboa succeeds in being more than just a movie about trading punches. Rather than being hollow and fight-driven, it’s a movie with real heart.
Pace: 4
The “heart” portion, unfortunately, comes at a cost. When you watch the movie, you have to adjust your expectations as things move at a much slower pace. Rocky doesn’t even consider making a return until well into the movie. I kept watching waiting for a fight to finally happen and it was slow-going. However, even with a slower pace than the previous movies, Balboa still shines.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 9
Somewhat predictable but no less powerful. It ties up nicely what we see at the beginning. A fitting finale to Rocky’s in-the-ring saga.
Overall: 87
Heroes in movies come in many forms. What makes Rocky so special is his consistency of character throughout the decades. He swore in the beginning to never change who he was, but I think he lied to us. I think he became an even better man. Rocky Balboa. Hero for the generations.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Two things really grabbed me as the movie opens. I loved the beautiful shots of Philadelphia at the start. The city plays a huge role in Rocky’s character development and these shots helped get me in tune with the heart of what the city is all about. I also appreciated the first scene between Rocky and his son Rocky Jr. (Milo Ventimiglia) depicting their strained relationship since Adrian’s death. It’s an awkward scene that makes you sympathize with where Rocky is in his life.
How did he get to this point? It’s seem like he’s lost so much, yet he’s still that gentle character from the 70’s we fell in love with. Seeing this scene was enough to tell me this film would take a lot different approach than the previous movies.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rocky’s older and not at the top of his game like he was when he took on Clubber Lang (what a name!). Yet he still found a way to get me out of my chair as he did in previous movies. The main bout gets pretty intense in spots as you root for the Italian Stallion to knock some sense into the new kid on the block. The conflict extends beyond the ring as well as Rocky tries to help people from his neighborhood while maintaining close relationships with family members Paulie (Burt Young) and Rocky Jr. On the surface he’s a hero, but underneath his life is in shambles. As an audience, we find ourselves rallying behind Rocky as we’ve done in all the others movies past.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 7
Compared to other films, it doesn’t quite have the same memorability as classic ones I’ve seen, but succeeds in giving us a reason to cheer and a reason to feel. Rocky Balboa succeeds in being more than just a movie about trading punches. Rather than being hollow and fight-driven, it’s a movie with real heart.
Pace: 4
The “heart” portion, unfortunately, comes at a cost. When you watch the movie, you have to adjust your expectations as things move at a much slower pace. Rocky doesn’t even consider making a return until well into the movie. I kept watching waiting for a fight to finally happen and it was slow-going. However, even with a slower pace than the previous movies, Balboa still shines.
Plot: 8
Resolution: 9
Somewhat predictable but no less powerful. It ties up nicely what we see at the beginning. A fitting finale to Rocky’s in-the-ring saga.
Overall: 87
Heroes in movies come in many forms. What makes Rocky so special is his consistency of character throughout the decades. He swore in the beginning to never change who he was, but I think he lied to us. I think he became an even better man. Rocky Balboa. Hero for the generations.

Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Wintersong in Books
Dec 27, 2018
So I knew this was inspired by Jim Henson's Labyrinth. That's partially why I picked it up, as I love that movie and David Bowie as the Goblin King. I didn't expect to get, basically, Labyrinth fanfiction. That was my first impression. As the book carries on, though, and especially as you get into the second book, it's more like a musician's fever-dream of their favorite childhood movie. There are so many elements taken from the movie, but they are deconstructed and put back together in such unexpected ways.
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com

Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated Shadowsong (Wintersong #2) in Books
Dec 27, 2018
So I knew this was inspired by Jim Henson's Labyrinth. That's partially why I picked it up, as I love that movie and David Bowie as the Goblin King. I didn't expect to get, basically, Labyrinth fanfiction. That was my first impression. As the book carries on, though, and especially as you get into the second book, it's more like a musician's fever-dream of their favorite childhood movie. There are so many elements taken from the movie, but they are deconstructed and put back together in such unexpected ways.
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com
You'll recognize a line or two from the movie. The fairies still bite. The Goblin King is still beautiful and angular and strange. Liesl's after a stolen sibling. But Liesl and her family live in rural, probably 18th century Bavaria. She is not a spoiled, baby-sitting half-sister. Her grandmother has taught her the old stories, and unbeknownst to her, she's played music for The Goblin King her entire childhood.
The first book concerns Liesl's first foray into the Underground to save her sister when The Goblin King steals her to be his bride. This is where the acid trip starts. If you're familiar with Labyrinth, remember the ballroom scene? With people whirling about and appearing and disappearing and mirrors and the sense of disorientation as it all falls apart? Yeah, that's basically the entire time in the Underground. Though there is a ball scene, and it is especially trippy.
While Liesl manages to save her sister (that's a spoiler, but it isn't much of one), she has a harder time saving herself. Whether she actually does or not could be debated.
The second book of the duology, Shadowsong, has an interesting author's note in the front of it. The author first gives a content warning for self-harm, suicidal ideations, addiction, and reckless behaviors. She goes on to say Liesl has bipolar disorder, and further, that so does she. (The author.) She says Wintersong was her bright mirror, and Shadowsong her dark one. I can see that. Wintersong is a much happier book than Shadowsong, but the story would be incomplete without both books. Wintersong does end in a satisfactory conclusion, but Shadowsong just completes the tale in a way that I, at least, really enjoyed.
Shadowsong also contains more throwbacks to the movie - she falls and is caught by goblin hands; goblins form a giant face that talks to her about the old laws. These things don't happen in the same scene, though.
I loved the elements of music woven throughout the story; Liesl is a composer, and music - her music - is almost a character in its own right. It's definitely a huge plot element. It's in her connection to her brother, and her connection to The Goblin King. It's her way into the Underground, and her way out, and her way to reach back in.
It's an enchanting duology; I don't know if it would be as good for someone who didn't love Labyrinth the way I do. If you dislike the movie, I would probably advise against reading these. But if you like it or have simply never seen it, these would be good, atmospheric books to read in the dead of winter.
You can read all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.com

Erika (17789 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 27, 2018 (Updated Apr 28, 2018)
Predictable (1 more)
Some shoddy SFX
Contains spoilers, click to show
So, it's finally here, Happy Infinity War day!
Now, I'm even going to enter down. Seriously, don't read any further if you want the movie unspoiled.
Yes, I'm calling the film predictable, because it was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, there just wasn't anything that honestly surprised me.
For one, I completely guessed the first two people to bite the dust, based solely on the end credit scene in Ragnarok. Heimdall dies first, but not before conveniently getting Hulk out of there.
Loki dies next, but not before you think they're completely going to reverse the story arc from Ragnarok. Whew, but they didn't. Hiddles did a really fantastic job in the whole 5-10 min he was in the film.
Thanos looked pretty good, they seemed to have fixed the color on him from the whack neon purple in that first trailer. His minions were a bit weak, and overall I don't even know what their names were, however, I don't think I was supposed to care.
I think the Guardians of the Galaxy were given way too much screentime. I'm so over them. I also got a Gamora backstory that I didn't want nor need. I'm hoping she's one of the for sure dead.
I was so happy they finally addressed Red Skull, of course he was alive! My only question is, yall couldn't shell out enough money to get Hugo Weaving back in the makeup? Come on Disney.
The only characters I for sure believe are dead and gone, are Vision, Loki, and Heimdall. Gamora is up for debate. Everyone else...come on, it's a comic book movie. I do wish they'd have had the balls to let Tony Stark die.
So, at the end, we're left with the OG Avengers. Hawkeye and Ant Man are with their fams, and Thanos got what he wanted. There's also the Captain Marvel paging scene after the credits. Of course it needed to be in there.
ALSO, set up for Venom?? That was such a good idea! At least, I believe it was supposed to be a set up...
Ah right, the shoddy SFX... there are a few scenes towards the end, especially with Thor that looked so cheap. It was strange.
Anyway, I can't give it a 10 because of those shoddy graphics, and there was too much GotG.
Now, I'm even going to enter down. Seriously, don't read any further if you want the movie unspoiled.
Yes, I'm calling the film predictable, because it was. It's not necessarily a bad thing, there just wasn't anything that honestly surprised me.
For one, I completely guessed the first two people to bite the dust, based solely on the end credit scene in Ragnarok. Heimdall dies first, but not before conveniently getting Hulk out of there.
Loki dies next, but not before you think they're completely going to reverse the story arc from Ragnarok. Whew, but they didn't. Hiddles did a really fantastic job in the whole 5-10 min he was in the film.
Thanos looked pretty good, they seemed to have fixed the color on him from the whack neon purple in that first trailer. His minions were a bit weak, and overall I don't even know what their names were, however, I don't think I was supposed to care.
I think the Guardians of the Galaxy were given way too much screentime. I'm so over them. I also got a Gamora backstory that I didn't want nor need. I'm hoping she's one of the for sure dead.
I was so happy they finally addressed Red Skull, of course he was alive! My only question is, yall couldn't shell out enough money to get Hugo Weaving back in the makeup? Come on Disney.
The only characters I for sure believe are dead and gone, are Vision, Loki, and Heimdall. Gamora is up for debate. Everyone else...come on, it's a comic book movie. I do wish they'd have had the balls to let Tony Stark die.
So, at the end, we're left with the OG Avengers. Hawkeye and Ant Man are with their fams, and Thanos got what he wanted. There's also the Captain Marvel paging scene after the credits. Of course it needed to be in there.
ALSO, set up for Venom?? That was such a good idea! At least, I believe it was supposed to be a set up...
Ah right, the shoddy SFX... there are a few scenes towards the end, especially with Thor that looked so cheap. It was strange.
Anyway, I can't give it a 10 because of those shoddy graphics, and there was too much GotG.

Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).

Lee (2222 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Nov 18, 2017
Messy introduction (1 more)
Steppenwolf
A really pleasant surprise
PRE-MOVIE THOUGHTS: Up until very recently, I'd been cautiously optimistic regarding Justice League. I enjoyed Man of Steel, despite some faults, and I thought that Henry Cavill was perfectly suited to the role. I didn't mind Batman V Superman so much either, despite Jesse Eisenbergs Lex Luthor constantly trying to ruin it. The best thing about Batman V Superman though was Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman, which is why her standalone origin movie deservedly did so well earlier this year. But the characters of Superman and Batman were beginning to get a bit of a raw deal in my opinion, and that was starting to piss me off. The original Superman movie with Christopher Reeve, along with Christopher Nolans Dark Knight trilogy, are among my favourite films and these latest movies just weren't doing them 'justice'. Suicide Squad showed that DC couldn't do an ensemble movie, which cast a lot of doubt over just how good Justice League was going to be. And when reports came in of re-shoots and a change of director, it wasn't really looking good. But some of the more recent trailers and teasers actually didn't look so bad, so maybe there wasn't too much to be worried about. Until a few days ago that is, when about 90% of the reviews I read didn't give it higher than two stars! And those that gave it higher were still highlighting some of the weaknesses I've already mentioned here. So, I headed into the cinema, expecting to be pissed off again. But seriously, genuinely hoping I wasn't.
POST-MOVIE REVIEW: Justice League doesn't start things off too well. The world is still mourning the death of Superman, and a few pointless scenes try to highlight that loss and despair. Batman and Wonder Woman appear in a couple of standalone battles to remind us what they're capable of, but those scenes also seem rushed and out of place. We have three new team members to be introduced to as well, along with the big bad of the movie. Whereas Marvel's Avengers took the time to introduce their team over a series of standalone movies, we've had no such luxury in the run up to Justice League, aside from some brief glimpses in previous movies. It all just seems like a rush to get things to the point where the team are together and can start having some fun. Everything up until that point just seems cobbled together. Lacking coherence, and just a little bit dull.
Talking of dull, once again the big bad of the movie is a bit of a let down. Steppenwolf appears on Earth in search of three powerful cubes which when combined together will give him the ability to forge the Earth into something more appealing to him, or something like that anyway. He's accompanied by thousands of flying zombie man-bug type creatures and the whole thing just reeks of supervillain plotlines we've seen many times before. Steppenwolf himself is entirely CGI, and at times the CGI just doesn't look that good.
Onto the league themselves. Well, Wonder Woman is still the most impressive of them all, proving to be a real natural leader. Batman, although greatly improved on his Batman V Superman appearance, just seems like he can't be bothered. Tired and uninterested at times. This might be partly down to Ben Affleck, who never really seemed suited to the role in my opinion. If the rumours of him being recast in the next standalone Batman movie are true, then it may well be for the best. Even if the thought of yet another actor taking on the role so soon already is extremely frustrating.
The two biggest surprise for me were the two characters I was initially least interested about when heading in to the cinema. Cyborg, from his introduction in BvS and glimpses in the trailers, just seemed pointless. But, despite that we gloss over his back story somewhat, actually proves himself to be a valuable and interesting member of the team. And as for The Flash, he manages to get many of the movies better lines and scenes while he tries to come to terms with what he can actually do with his power ("Up until now I usually just run really fast and push people").
Slightly disappointing though was Aquaman. Not the character himself, just the fact that we barely get a glimpse of his undersea world, before he finds himself thrust into the league, reduced to just being some extra muscle. His is a role which would have greatly benefited from a standalone origin movie before appearing in this one.
When the team eventually do come together is when the movie really steps up a gear. They work really well together and I really enjoyed the battle scenes. It soon becomes clear though, that they cannot defeat Steppenwolf on their own, and need somebody even more powerful to help them out.
It's no secret, despite his absence from the trailers, that Superman returns to become part of the league. I felt that this was handled really well and the team helping to overcome his initial disorientation was a really fun scene. When he is fully recovered and battling the bad guys, it's the kind of Superman we all know and love and everything involving him is just hugely enjoyable.
If it wasn't for the rushed, incoherent introduction to the movie, I would have rated this a lot higher. For me, the rest of the movie is right up there with this years Wonder Woman, and is a serious step in the right direction for DC. A really pleasant surprise...
POST-MOVIE REVIEW: Justice League doesn't start things off too well. The world is still mourning the death of Superman, and a few pointless scenes try to highlight that loss and despair. Batman and Wonder Woman appear in a couple of standalone battles to remind us what they're capable of, but those scenes also seem rushed and out of place. We have three new team members to be introduced to as well, along with the big bad of the movie. Whereas Marvel's Avengers took the time to introduce their team over a series of standalone movies, we've had no such luxury in the run up to Justice League, aside from some brief glimpses in previous movies. It all just seems like a rush to get things to the point where the team are together and can start having some fun. Everything up until that point just seems cobbled together. Lacking coherence, and just a little bit dull.
Talking of dull, once again the big bad of the movie is a bit of a let down. Steppenwolf appears on Earth in search of three powerful cubes which when combined together will give him the ability to forge the Earth into something more appealing to him, or something like that anyway. He's accompanied by thousands of flying zombie man-bug type creatures and the whole thing just reeks of supervillain plotlines we've seen many times before. Steppenwolf himself is entirely CGI, and at times the CGI just doesn't look that good.
Onto the league themselves. Well, Wonder Woman is still the most impressive of them all, proving to be a real natural leader. Batman, although greatly improved on his Batman V Superman appearance, just seems like he can't be bothered. Tired and uninterested at times. This might be partly down to Ben Affleck, who never really seemed suited to the role in my opinion. If the rumours of him being recast in the next standalone Batman movie are true, then it may well be for the best. Even if the thought of yet another actor taking on the role so soon already is extremely frustrating.
The two biggest surprise for me were the two characters I was initially least interested about when heading in to the cinema. Cyborg, from his introduction in BvS and glimpses in the trailers, just seemed pointless. But, despite that we gloss over his back story somewhat, actually proves himself to be a valuable and interesting member of the team. And as for The Flash, he manages to get many of the movies better lines and scenes while he tries to come to terms with what he can actually do with his power ("Up until now I usually just run really fast and push people").
Slightly disappointing though was Aquaman. Not the character himself, just the fact that we barely get a glimpse of his undersea world, before he finds himself thrust into the league, reduced to just being some extra muscle. His is a role which would have greatly benefited from a standalone origin movie before appearing in this one.
When the team eventually do come together is when the movie really steps up a gear. They work really well together and I really enjoyed the battle scenes. It soon becomes clear though, that they cannot defeat Steppenwolf on their own, and need somebody even more powerful to help them out.
It's no secret, despite his absence from the trailers, that Superman returns to become part of the league. I felt that this was handled really well and the team helping to overcome his initial disorientation was a really fun scene. When he is fully recovered and battling the bad guys, it's the kind of Superman we all know and love and everything involving him is just hugely enjoyable.
If it wasn't for the rushed, incoherent introduction to the movie, I would have rated this a lot higher. For me, the rest of the movie is right up there with this years Wonder Woman, and is a serious step in the right direction for DC. A really pleasant surprise...

Katie (868 KP) rated Mad Monster Party? (1967) in Movies
Jun 16, 2018
Excellent character design (3 more)
Overall look of the film
Francesca is a style icon
Little Tibia and the Fibias!!
Slow paced (1 more)
Very little substance
Tons of style, very little substance
I went into this one really expecting to love it and I did love aspects of it. The character design, sets, and cinematography were great and Rankin/Bass fans will not be disappointed by those things. The music was fine, especially the opening sequence, but also left much to be desired. There weren't really any catchy, unforgettable songs that one usually finds on a Rankin/Bass production.
While there were some funny moments and some parts of the story were interesting, it seems that the film was mostly a series of kooky gags. Don't get me wrong, I love that kind of humor, but it needed to be supported by more plot than was provided. Often it was easy to forget that there even was one. I think Mad Monster Party would have benefited from cutting some scenes to make it a 45 minute special rather than feature length.
I went into this movie wondering why I hadn't heard of it until recently and why it wasn't a Halloween staple of my youth like "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were for Christmas. After finishing it I had my answer. It was a little too grown up for children (and maybe a bit too boring) and didn't have enough substance for adults.
While it's hard to recommend this one to anyone I probably will be watching it again. The good parts are good enough to bring me back and the bad isn't bad enough to scare me away (and now I know which scenes to avoid).
I also realize that this has a lot of jokes directed at the readers of Mad Magazine, which I am not. So feel free to prove me wrong about this movie. I really want to love it!
While there were some funny moments and some parts of the story were interesting, it seems that the film was mostly a series of kooky gags. Don't get me wrong, I love that kind of humor, but it needed to be supported by more plot than was provided. Often it was easy to forget that there even was one. I think Mad Monster Party would have benefited from cutting some scenes to make it a 45 minute special rather than feature length.
I went into this movie wondering why I hadn't heard of it until recently and why it wasn't a Halloween staple of my youth like "Santa Clause is Coming to Town" or "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were for Christmas. After finishing it I had my answer. It was a little too grown up for children (and maybe a bit too boring) and didn't have enough substance for adults.
While it's hard to recommend this one to anyone I probably will be watching it again. The good parts are good enough to bring me back and the bad isn't bad enough to scare me away (and now I know which scenes to avoid).
I also realize that this has a lot of jokes directed at the readers of Mad Magazine, which I am not. So feel free to prove me wrong about this movie. I really want to love it!

Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 14, 2018 (Updated Dec 14, 2018)
Cast all give good performances (1 more)
Cool to see the Drago's return to the franchise
A Decent Second Round
Creed 2 is the follow up to Ryan Coogler's brilliant 2015 soft reboot of the franchise. This time though, Steven Caple Jr takes the director's chair and delivers a sequel that is still fun, but nowhere near as original or breath-taking as the first Creed.
The cast all still manage to put in good performances and they make the very most of the material that they are all given. It is also cool to see Dolph Lundgren return to the iconic role of Ivan Drago after so many years. I also feel like the guy who plays Creed's opponent in the movie, Ivan Drago, deserves a shout out. He is played by real life boxer and hard-man Florian Munteanu and not only does he bring a magnificent physical presence to the role, but delivers some convincing confliction in the reasons he has for pursuing this goal of taking Creed's title and some genuinely emotional gravitas, he wasn't just the typical mean Rocky movie villain that you would expect.
The most disappointing thing about Creed 2 is the lacklustre filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the cinematography and the lighting etc are perfectly serviceable and even come close to borderline exiting in a few rare spots. However, after that beautiful long take during Adonis' fight in Mexico and the other awesome imagery used in the first Creed, this just feels vastly formulaic as a follow up.
Overall, If you are a fan of the Rocky franchise like I am, then you have most likely already seen this anyway and if not, there isn't much here to merit me recommending it to a franchise newcomer and you would be much better served with the technically superior first Creed film. Still though, there is an enjoyable time to be had watching Creed 2 for it's surprising level of depth and heartfelt performances from everyone in the cast.
The cast all still manage to put in good performances and they make the very most of the material that they are all given. It is also cool to see Dolph Lundgren return to the iconic role of Ivan Drago after so many years. I also feel like the guy who plays Creed's opponent in the movie, Ivan Drago, deserves a shout out. He is played by real life boxer and hard-man Florian Munteanu and not only does he bring a magnificent physical presence to the role, but delivers some convincing confliction in the reasons he has for pursuing this goal of taking Creed's title and some genuinely emotional gravitas, he wasn't just the typical mean Rocky movie villain that you would expect.
The most disappointing thing about Creed 2 is the lacklustre filmmaking. Don't get me wrong, the direction, the cinematography and the lighting etc are perfectly serviceable and even come close to borderline exiting in a few rare spots. However, after that beautiful long take during Adonis' fight in Mexico and the other awesome imagery used in the first Creed, this just feels vastly formulaic as a follow up.
Overall, If you are a fan of the Rocky franchise like I am, then you have most likely already seen this anyway and if not, there isn't much here to merit me recommending it to a franchise newcomer and you would be much better served with the technically superior first Creed film. Still though, there is an enjoyable time to be had watching Creed 2 for it's surprising level of depth and heartfelt performances from everyone in the cast.