Search
Search results
EV
Escape Velocity: American Science Fiction Film, 1950-1982
Book
Today, movie theaters are packed with audiences of all ages marveling to exciting science fiction...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 18, 2023
The Best DCEU Film Since the original WONDER WOMAN
At this point in time, the average movie-going public is suffering from “Super-Hero” fatigue, and (more than likely) “multi-verse” fatigue because the latest entries in this genre all are tapping the same type of experience (in order to pull in properties/characters from other films). It’s a smart strategy from a Movie Executive point-of-view as they can bring in other, generally liked/loved characters from previous films/entities.
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sometimes it works Excellently (SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE), sometimes it works “Well Enough” (DR. STRANGE IN THE MULTI-VERSE OF MADNESS) and sometimes it is just plain boring (the latest ANT-MAN movie), so expectation is that the DCEU will find a way to screw this up and make dull and boring a premise (and characters) that should be exciting and fun.
And…with THE FLASH, the DCEU got it right (for once) and it is the most fun DCEU film since the first WONDER WOMAN film.
Based on the FLASHPOINT comics series and Directed by Andy Muschietti (IT and IT, Part II), THE FLASH Isn’t (really) a “multi-verse” story, it’s a time travel tale (that causes multi-verses). An important distinction for the Fanboy - but rather unimportant to the regular movie-going person. This tale brings a bunch of fun (and humor!) to the DCEU as well as touching on the fondness nerve for by-gone characters (and the actors who portrayed them).
Central to this film is, of course, THE FLASH, played by Ezra Miller. Your enjoyment of this film will swing on whether you find Miller’s performance “fun” or “annoying” for it strides that line between the two. For the BankofMarquis, Miller’s performance was a ton of fun - which added to the enjoyment rather than taking away from it.
He is joined by a bevy of cameo appearances - to name any would be to spoil them - but (since it is in the trailer), Miller does spend much of this film interacting with his younger self and he succeeds (more than he fails) during this part of the film. The 2 Millers are also joined by Michael Keaton, reprising his role as Batman from the 1980’s (again…not a spoiler - he’s in the trailer). Keaton brings starpower - and star energy - to this film and he lifts the middle portion of this movie.
Muschietti conducts this orchestra of multiple-cameos, multiple versions of the same character and multiple special effects professionally and cleanly, never letting the audience get lost and (most certainly) never letting the camera (or the film) linger too long on any plot device (which hides the holes that, inevitably, show up).
A fun, enough, installment in the DCEU - with some heart and a large portion of nostalgia - THE FLASH is a positive way to say goodbye to the DCEU.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated At The Devil's Door (2014) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – This was a hard film to figure out who the main character was until the end, so I will talk about the three biggest characters in no particular order. Hannah is the first one we meet, she is a runaway that finds herself in the middle of a demon worshiping cult, walking the halls of a house up for sale, she has a secret waiting to reveal. Leigh is the real-estate agent that is trying toe sale the house only to learn that there is a force in the house trying to control certain movements. Vera is the younger sister of Leigh, an artists that becomes the target of the presence that is haunting the land.
Performances – While I don’t think the actors do a bad job in anyway in this film, the scorecard is being harsh on them, most of this complaint that the characters don’t become the main until late in the film which doesn’t give us enough time to get behind the actors. The three actresses do well with what they have without having that one moment that makes them stand out.
Story – The story follows a potential demon being born into the world, I think, it would be fair to say this movie does put forward all the generic ideas that something is off with each scene, but as I was saying with the characters, we follow ones events only for the to mean nothing and these scenes go on for a healthy 20 odd minutes before we move onto the next character’s story, which only leaves us confused and feeling withdrawn from where the story is going.
Horror – The horror is the normal, people walking around the empty houses following or running from noises, the only scene that stands out is involving the hospital.
Settings – The film keeps us in a few houses that always seem to be empty, nothing is overly interesting with the locations being used.
Special Effects – The effects are the strongest part of the film, it does have a couple of stand out moments which will make you look away but also make you want to watch.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the main character early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy confusing movie that does try to break the mould because of the source material of demon trying to be born, we skip over the been there scene that parts but it takes too long to get there.
Overall: Not good enough horror movie.
Performances – While I don’t think the actors do a bad job in anyway in this film, the scorecard is being harsh on them, most of this complaint that the characters don’t become the main until late in the film which doesn’t give us enough time to get behind the actors. The three actresses do well with what they have without having that one moment that makes them stand out.
Story – The story follows a potential demon being born into the world, I think, it would be fair to say this movie does put forward all the generic ideas that something is off with each scene, but as I was saying with the characters, we follow ones events only for the to mean nothing and these scenes go on for a healthy 20 odd minutes before we move onto the next character’s story, which only leaves us confused and feeling withdrawn from where the story is going.
Horror – The horror is the normal, people walking around the empty houses following or running from noises, the only scene that stands out is involving the hospital.
Settings – The film keeps us in a few houses that always seem to be empty, nothing is overly interesting with the locations being used.
Special Effects – The effects are the strongest part of the film, it does have a couple of stand out moments which will make you look away but also make you want to watch.
Scene of the Movie – Hospital time.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not knowing the main character early on.
Final Thoughts – This is a messy confusing movie that does try to break the mould because of the source material of demon trying to be born, we skip over the been there scene that parts but it takes too long to get there.
Overall: Not good enough horror movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Mowgli (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When humans encroach on the jungle they get too close to the animals that call the jungle home. It’s inevitable that they clash. When Shere Khan (Benedict Cumberbatch), a tiger who has no regard for the rules of the jungle, slaughters a group of humans only a child survives. A black panther, Bagheera (Christian Bale), saves the boy, Mowgli (Rohan Chand), and takes him to live with a group of wolves. There he is raised by his mother, Nisha (Naomie Harris), and tried to become part of the pack by Baloo (Andy Serkis), a black bear. Mowgli must train with Baloo to become a member of the pack. As he trains he sees that man expand. With this expansion the man brings back Shere Khan. He kills many of the cows and leaves them for the humans to find. This makes the humans enlist a hunter, Lockwood (Matthew Rhys), to kill the tiger. Also Bagheera believes that sending Mowgli to the humans will keep him safe. Mowgli, just a young boy, must now try and bridge the animal world he knows in the jungle and the human world.
This is a live action retelling of the novel by Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book. Actor/Director Andy Serkis creates a beautiful story with really well done CGI. The visuals are really well done and by far the best part of the film. The cast, which also includes Cate Blanchett, Eddie Marsan, Tom Hollander, etc. make the animals they voice come to life. This take on the famous story is familiar but also changed ever so slightly from previous versions that it keeps it interesting. Young actor Rohan Chand does a decent job of carrying most of the live acting portions of the film.
The film really made me feel nostalgic at times. The film does take a little darker look at the old classic and would say it is for a little more mature audiences than the 1967 cartoon or 2016 live action, both The Jungle Book, takes on this story. The visuals are really good but the story does miss at times. I really thought that the climax really had a slow build but then really finished quickly. There was definitely room for improvement there but overall it was a pleasant movie experience. The theater viewing was visually really good and I am sure it would be a decent home experience with the Netflix release.
This is a live action retelling of the novel by Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book. Actor/Director Andy Serkis creates a beautiful story with really well done CGI. The visuals are really well done and by far the best part of the film. The cast, which also includes Cate Blanchett, Eddie Marsan, Tom Hollander, etc. make the animals they voice come to life. This take on the famous story is familiar but also changed ever so slightly from previous versions that it keeps it interesting. Young actor Rohan Chand does a decent job of carrying most of the live acting portions of the film.
The film really made me feel nostalgic at times. The film does take a little darker look at the old classic and would say it is for a little more mature audiences than the 1967 cartoon or 2016 live action, both The Jungle Book, takes on this story. The visuals are really good but the story does miss at times. I really thought that the climax really had a slow build but then really finished quickly. There was definitely room for improvement there but overall it was a pleasant movie experience. The theater viewing was visually really good and I am sure it would be a decent home experience with the Netflix release.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Harry & Meghan: A Royal Romance in TV
May 21, 2018 (Updated May 21, 2018)
I Give It A Year
Mind-bogglingly weird, supposedly based-on-true-events TV movie cashing in on the recent paroxysm of monarchist schmaltz. You know the story: she's on TV, he used to be in the army, hushed intake of breath from the British establishment when it turns out the lad's seeing a lady of her particular type, and so on, and so.
Everything is very clearly presented as the tale of a modern, progressive, independent woman who ain't gonna take no nonsense from this troubled scion of a gaggle of hidebound inbreds; Meghan is the heroine who saves Harry from the crushing oppressiveness of royal tradition. You go, your grace!
Direction is bland, acting mostly indifferent, dialogue execrable. Worth watching for: the scene where Meghan ends up chasing Harry's private jet down the runway after precipitately chucking him. The subplot about Princess Diana being reincarnated as a lion. Some very surprising dialogue ('I love a dirty martini,' says the Duchess of Cornwall). Possibly the least accurate depiction of the Queen ever put on screen - she complains about how she's shown in The Crown, in a nicely meta moment.
Pervasive sense of double-think permeates the production: film is consistently down on the royals, which is odd when you consider that if Harry wasn't a royal it wouldn't actually exist. Media intrusion on the couple is also strongly frowned upon, but if making a whole movie fictionalising their lives isn't an intrusion of some sort, what is? Soon to pass into obscurity, I reckon, but an arresting, mutant production while it's with us.
Everything is very clearly presented as the tale of a modern, progressive, independent woman who ain't gonna take no nonsense from this troubled scion of a gaggle of hidebound inbreds; Meghan is the heroine who saves Harry from the crushing oppressiveness of royal tradition. You go, your grace!
Direction is bland, acting mostly indifferent, dialogue execrable. Worth watching for: the scene where Meghan ends up chasing Harry's private jet down the runway after precipitately chucking him. The subplot about Princess Diana being reincarnated as a lion. Some very surprising dialogue ('I love a dirty martini,' says the Duchess of Cornwall). Possibly the least accurate depiction of the Queen ever put on screen - she complains about how she's shown in The Crown, in a nicely meta moment.
Pervasive sense of double-think permeates the production: film is consistently down on the royals, which is odd when you consider that if Harry wasn't a royal it wouldn't actually exist. Media intrusion on the couple is also strongly frowned upon, but if making a whole movie fictionalising their lives isn't an intrusion of some sort, what is? Soon to pass into obscurity, I reckon, but an arresting, mutant production while it's with us.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Tyler Perry's A Fall From Grace (2020) in Movies
Aug 23, 2020
Destroyed By Pacing Among Other Things
After being accused of killing her husband, Grace Waters’ (Crystal Fox) only hope is a public defender trying her first case.
Acting: 3
To say the acting is weak is an understatement. Everything is either overdone or underdone, but nothing in the middle. A shame too as there are some really stellar names on the billing. I have honestly seen better dramatizing out of six-year-olds.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 7
If it’s one thing I can respect Tyler Perry for, it’s finding a way to incorporate consistent drama. More than most, he gets it. What I mean by that is, he understands that drama never has to be forced, rather you put two conflicting sides in the same scene and the drama will happen naturally. The problem here is that the drama in question wasn’t always interesting or intriguing.
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 0
Pace: 5
Got bored real quick and I try and hold interest in movies even when I have to force it at times. Because there were so many moving parts and a lot of what felt like means to no ends, Also way longer than it needed to be.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 38
Outside of some mildly interesting conflict and decent characters that were buried by a sticky plot, this movie left a lot to be desired. I tried, I really did. But with a movie so low budget it doesn’t even look presentable on a 4K TV, I have to pass on Tyler Perry’s A Fall From Grace.
Acting: 3
To say the acting is weak is an understatement. Everything is either overdone or underdone, but nothing in the middle. A shame too as there are some really stellar names on the billing. I have honestly seen better dramatizing out of six-year-olds.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Conflict: 7
If it’s one thing I can respect Tyler Perry for, it’s finding a way to incorporate consistent drama. More than most, he gets it. What I mean by that is, he understands that drama never has to be forced, rather you put two conflicting sides in the same scene and the drama will happen naturally. The problem here is that the drama in question wasn’t always interesting or intriguing.
Entertainment Value: 3
Memorability: 0
Pace: 5
Got bored real quick and I try and hold interest in movies even when I have to force it at times. Because there were so many moving parts and a lot of what felt like means to no ends, Also way longer than it needed to be.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 2
Overall: 38
Outside of some mildly interesting conflict and decent characters that were buried by a sticky plot, this movie left a lot to be desired. I tried, I really did. But with a movie so low budget it doesn’t even look presentable on a 4K TV, I have to pass on Tyler Perry’s A Fall From Grace.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Sally Hawkins (1 more)
Michael Shannon
Beautiful and Enchanting
The Shape of Water really is one of those movies where I feel the trailer doesn't really do it justice. From seeing the trailer, I wasn't really sure how much I was going to enjoy the movie. Like I'm sure many others will be, I was persuaded that I might be wrong by the 13 Oscar nominations it recently received. I shouldn't have had any doubts to be honest. Pan's Labyrinth, also directed by Guillermo del Toro, is one of my favourite movies and The Shape of Water shares many similarities with that. A beautiful and enchanting mix of fairy tale, love story and monster movie.
Sally Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute woman who works nights as a janitor for Occam Aerospace Research Center along with friend Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). At home she lives a simple life, watching musicals with her gay neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins) and finding joy in the simple things in life. One day a strange creature is brought into the research center to be studied, surrounded by military and medical personnel. Colonel Richard Strickland has accompanied 'the asset' from it's previous location, and appears to have developed a serious dislike to it. He carries an electrified cattle prod, which he takes great delight in using on the creature. In return though, the creature does manage to remove two of Stricklands fingers, and also inflicts serious injuries on others.
But Elisa takes pity on the creature and over time tries to befriend it, bringing him hard-boiled eggs and teaching him sign language. When she learns that plans for the creature involve vivisection, she hatches a plan to help him escape, and from that point their feelings for each other develop into love. A true Beauty and the Beast style fairy tale.
I found myself absolutely captivated, swept along by the story, and everything about it is just beautiful. Sally Hawkins is incredible, portraying such varied emotions without speaking, she provides much of the films humour, and shines in the more serious scenes too. Doug Jones does what he does best as the creature, but the real monster of the movie is Michael Shannon as Colonel Strickland. Terrifyingly brilliant.
For me, I'm not sure if this beats Pan's Labyrinth, but The Shape of Water is certainly worthy of all the praise, and hopefully the awards, it receives.
Sally Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute woman who works nights as a janitor for Occam Aerospace Research Center along with friend Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). At home she lives a simple life, watching musicals with her gay neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins) and finding joy in the simple things in life. One day a strange creature is brought into the research center to be studied, surrounded by military and medical personnel. Colonel Richard Strickland has accompanied 'the asset' from it's previous location, and appears to have developed a serious dislike to it. He carries an electrified cattle prod, which he takes great delight in using on the creature. In return though, the creature does manage to remove two of Stricklands fingers, and also inflicts serious injuries on others.
But Elisa takes pity on the creature and over time tries to befriend it, bringing him hard-boiled eggs and teaching him sign language. When she learns that plans for the creature involve vivisection, she hatches a plan to help him escape, and from that point their feelings for each other develop into love. A true Beauty and the Beast style fairy tale.
I found myself absolutely captivated, swept along by the story, and everything about it is just beautiful. Sally Hawkins is incredible, portraying such varied emotions without speaking, she provides much of the films humour, and shines in the more serious scenes too. Doug Jones does what he does best as the creature, but the real monster of the movie is Michael Shannon as Colonel Strickland. Terrifyingly brilliant.
For me, I'm not sure if this beats Pan's Labyrinth, but The Shape of Water is certainly worthy of all the praise, and hopefully the awards, it receives.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
When his small paper is bought out but a large media conglomerate the free-spirited journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogen) quits rather write for a company he believes has a low moral compass. His best friend Lance (O’Shea Jackson Jr.) takes him out on the town to drown his sorrows. They decide to go to a charity function to get free drinks and watch Boyz II Men. As chance would have it Fred’s babysitter from high school, Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), is also there. Charlotte happens to be one of the most powerful women in the world. She is currently the Secretary of State and has her eyes set on the on the White House. But she recognizes Fred and they connect for a few moments. This chance meeting seems fortuitous for both. Fred needs a job and Charlotte is in need of a writer to help punch up her speeches. Fred also gets the chance to travel the world with his high school crush. Even though Fred isn’t your normal member of a government official’s entourage, dresses like a child, has a scraggly beard and looks high even when not, he can write. So he gets the chance to write entire speeches. As his role increases he needs to get to know this version of Charlotte a little better, rather than the girl he know in high school. They begin to spend more and more time together getting to know each other. Then a near death experience in Manilla leads to a wild night between the odd couple. But rather than a onetime thing the two begin sneaking away together. But as Charlotte heads toward a Presidential Campaign it seem inevitable that this secret relationship needs to end or go public.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
This Jonathan Levine (The Night Before, Snatched) directed romantic comedy is predictable with flares of originality. The cast is great. Rogen and Theron have good chemistry and do well. The supporting cast, O’Shea (Straight Outta Compton) as well as June Diane Raphael (Blockers, The Disaster Artist), Ravi Patel (T.V. series Wrecked, Grandfathered), Andy Serkis (Black Panther, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and others, all have fun moments. Bob Odenkirk (T.V.’s Better Call Saul) is very funny in his role as President Chambers. The comedy is fun, but raunchy at times. There were definitely laugh out loud moments. But some of the jokes were predictable and other good jokes were spoiled by the trailers, so avoid if possible. The story was also pretty predictable with the outcome never really in doubt but the ride was fun and had both really good moments and some that fell flat. It blended what could be believable politics with some things you know would not be, or you really hope couldn’t be, done by someone in a powerful government position.
I thought the film was good but it did run a little long, 125 minutes. I think it would be a good date movie but definitely leave the kids at home due to prevalent drug use and raunchy moments. I went in with low expectations and that could also help. But if you need a laugh or non-super hero movie to see this is worth the ticket price.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Joss Whedon (of Buffy/Firefly/Avengers fame) has written one of the most interestingly confusing scripts in recent history (with the help of co-writer Drew Goddard, who also directed the film). Starring Chris Hemsworth (Thor) as “the jock,” and a cast of other young folk, The Cabin in the Woods tackles what’s best described as an entirely new genre of filmmaking. This became obvious to me immediately after experiencing the last 30 seconds of the film.
The movie starts off with two disjointed storylines. In one plot thread, you have five college kids heading out for a weekend at a cabin on a lake. In the other, you have two professionally dressed desk jockeys going to work in what seems to be a mission control center. It becomes evident very early on that the organization for which these two men work is tracking the five vacationers.
The college group is comprised of the usual roles: the Jock, the Stoner, the Attractive Nerd, the Other Attractive Nerd, and the Slut. The five find themselves in a stereotypical horror film cabin. As the plot thickens, confusion sets in, and it becomes evident that their actions and fates are being controlled to some degree.
The most important observation I can share with you is that this movie was nothing like what I expected. It kept getting stranger and more unique the longer it went. Aside from the cheesy use of word graphics when the title was displayed, the cinematography is great. The acting is only decent, but the writing is entertaining. The film didn’t follow the normal conventions of a horror movie, but instead seemed to be an amalgamation of fantasy, horror and comedy; it was strongly reminiscent of the Evil Dead series.
I recommend watching The Cabin in the Woods purely for its unique and interesting take on a familiar story. You will be entertained.
The movie starts off with two disjointed storylines. In one plot thread, you have five college kids heading out for a weekend at a cabin on a lake. In the other, you have two professionally dressed desk jockeys going to work in what seems to be a mission control center. It becomes evident very early on that the organization for which these two men work is tracking the five vacationers.
The college group is comprised of the usual roles: the Jock, the Stoner, the Attractive Nerd, the Other Attractive Nerd, and the Slut. The five find themselves in a stereotypical horror film cabin. As the plot thickens, confusion sets in, and it becomes evident that their actions and fates are being controlled to some degree.
The most important observation I can share with you is that this movie was nothing like what I expected. It kept getting stranger and more unique the longer it went. Aside from the cheesy use of word graphics when the title was displayed, the cinematography is great. The acting is only decent, but the writing is entertaining. The film didn’t follow the normal conventions of a horror movie, but instead seemed to be an amalgamation of fantasy, horror and comedy; it was strongly reminiscent of the Evil Dead series.
I recommend watching The Cabin in the Woods purely for its unique and interesting take on a familiar story. You will be entertained.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 12, 2019
Why We Go to Movies
Let me just get this “blasphemous” statement out of the way now: I thought Mary Poppins Returns was a better movie overall than Mary Poppins. I didn’t stutter nor am I taking it back. Run away now or hear me out, the choice is yours. In this sequel, Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) does indeed return to take care of a new group of kids.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Here is what made the difference for me between the first and second movies. Consider the first film. If we’re really being honest, it primarily revolves around beautiful singing numbers with sprawling setpieces that are brilliantly brought to life on screen. Not only do you get that in the sequel, but you also get an actual conflict as well. There is an actual situation afoot that requires you to get behind the main characters and I really appreciated that aspect. Conflict is not just important, but NECESSARY to drive a story and you definitely get that here as the main family face potentially losing their home. Their struggle gives me a reason to keep watching beyond the amazing visuals and songs.
Genre: 8
This kids story is wonderful in so many different aspects. There is a magic here that’s unavoidable. As I said, I think it just edges out the original, but falls just short of other classic musicals like Singin’ In the Rain.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
For the most part, I was happy about the movement of the story. However, about ninety minutes in, things found themselves slowing down a bit as I was wondering when the movie was going to get to the punchline. It is refreshing that there is a solid blending of musical numbers and plot advancement and you never really feel like you’re getting too much of one or the other.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 86
The musical flow of Mary Poppins Returns kicks things off properly and brings the movie to a beautiful endgame. I appreciated the attention to detail both in the real world, but especially in the alternate worlds where your imagination is really stretched. This movie is a magical reminder of why we go to movies in the first place.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Here is what made the difference for me between the first and second movies. Consider the first film. If we’re really being honest, it primarily revolves around beautiful singing numbers with sprawling setpieces that are brilliantly brought to life on screen. Not only do you get that in the sequel, but you also get an actual conflict as well. There is an actual situation afoot that requires you to get behind the main characters and I really appreciated that aspect. Conflict is not just important, but NECESSARY to drive a story and you definitely get that here as the main family face potentially losing their home. Their struggle gives me a reason to keep watching beyond the amazing visuals and songs.
Genre: 8
This kids story is wonderful in so many different aspects. There is a magic here that’s unavoidable. As I said, I think it just edges out the original, but falls just short of other classic musicals like Singin’ In the Rain.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 7
For the most part, I was happy about the movement of the story. However, about ninety minutes in, things found themselves slowing down a bit as I was wondering when the movie was going to get to the punchline. It is refreshing that there is a solid blending of musical numbers and plot advancement and you never really feel like you’re getting too much of one or the other.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Overall: 86
The musical flow of Mary Poppins Returns kicks things off properly and brings the movie to a beautiful endgame. I appreciated the attention to detail both in the real world, but especially in the alternate worlds where your imagination is really stretched. This movie is a magical reminder of why we go to movies in the first place.