Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Isle of Dogs (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
When an outbreak of “dog-flu” and other dog diseases ravish Japan. Mayor Kobayashi (Kunichi Nomura voice) signs an order to banish all dogs to Trash Island, aka the Isle of Dogs. The island is now home to thousands of dogs who are all scavenging for food. Groups of dogs’ band together to fight for scraps of trash and survive. Then all one day a plane crashes on the island. A boy, Atari (Koyu Rankin voice), has come to the island to find his dog best friend Spots (Liev Schreiber voice). Five dogs find Atari injured buy the crash. The lone stray in the group, Chief (Bryan Cranston voice), has no use for masters and wants to leave the boy. But the rest of the group, Rex (Edward Norton voice), King (Bob Balaban voice), Duke (Jeff Goldblum voice) and Boss (Bill Murray voice) all want help the boy find his best friend. Out voted by the domesticated dogs in the group Chief agrees and they set out on a journey to find Atari’s lost dog on an island full of dogs.
This stop-motion animated film is the latest written and directed film by Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Royal Tenenbaums). Anderson’s unique film style and dialog are very present in this Japanese based tale. The stop motion animation is very well done and highlighted throughout the film. From the dogs’ hair moving with the animals to flower petals floating through the air the small details are not missed and expertly done. The dialog was also very much staying with Andersons unique style. It is fast paced and full of subtle comedy. The story is original and fun but also full of meaning and heart. The star studded cast does well in providing their voices to the animated film. The sound track really fits the film well.
The film was not without its struggles. At the beginning of the film it was pointed out that the humans would speak their native language, in most cases Japanese, and the dogs barks had been translated to English. This provides some fun moments throughout the film as there are translators to press conferences and the dog interpreting what the humans say to other dogs. But at times it seemed to me that the humans could understand what the dogs were saying, barking. So it was a little inconsistent. Also one character put into the movie presumably to aid in translation in the film as an American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig voice). Other than translating parts of the film I don’t know why this character had to be American and could not have been Japanese. It definitely helped the overall theme of the movie to have her there to describe what was happening, given the fact there were no subtitles, but did seem a little forced.
I am definitely a fan of Wes Anderson’s film making and one of a kind style. That comes with certain expectations, which in this case were met. But I also understand that as someone reviewing the film it may make me a little bias. As noted above there a few minor issues I had with the film in general but overall I enjoyed the film and thing fans of Anderson will not be disappointed and neither will those who are just looking for a fun movie. I think overall this is a beautifully made and fun film.
This stop-motion animated film is the latest written and directed film by Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and The Royal Tenenbaums). Anderson’s unique film style and dialog are very present in this Japanese based tale. The stop motion animation is very well done and highlighted throughout the film. From the dogs’ hair moving with the animals to flower petals floating through the air the small details are not missed and expertly done. The dialog was also very much staying with Andersons unique style. It is fast paced and full of subtle comedy. The story is original and fun but also full of meaning and heart. The star studded cast does well in providing their voices to the animated film. The sound track really fits the film well.
The film was not without its struggles. At the beginning of the film it was pointed out that the humans would speak their native language, in most cases Japanese, and the dogs barks had been translated to English. This provides some fun moments throughout the film as there are translators to press conferences and the dog interpreting what the humans say to other dogs. But at times it seemed to me that the humans could understand what the dogs were saying, barking. So it was a little inconsistent. Also one character put into the movie presumably to aid in translation in the film as an American exchange student, Tracy Walker (Greta Gerwig voice). Other than translating parts of the film I don’t know why this character had to be American and could not have been Japanese. It definitely helped the overall theme of the movie to have her there to describe what was happening, given the fact there were no subtitles, but did seem a little forced.
I am definitely a fan of Wes Anderson’s film making and one of a kind style. That comes with certain expectations, which in this case were met. But I also understand that as someone reviewing the film it may make me a little bias. As noted above there a few minor issues I had with the film in general but overall I enjoyed the film and thing fans of Anderson will not be disappointed and neither will those who are just looking for a fun movie. I think overall this is a beautifully made and fun film.
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 29, 2019
With Tomorrowland's lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn't involve watching this movie.
Disney’s Tomorrowland implores us to imagine a world without limitation. One where nothing is impossible, and all of our wildest dreams can come true. (Sounds very trademark Disney, doesn’t it?) In the movie, that world exists in the form of a secret utopian society that has been built by only the brightest of minds. It is a place that exists free of politics and corruption, where people can push the boundaries of possibility as far as their imaginations will take them. Tomorrowland is a world meant to inspire, to evoke wonder, and to nurture creativity. It’s a stunning shame then, that all I ever felt while watching the movie was sheer boredom. For all of its endless opportunity, Tomorrowland ends up being almost completely uninteresting. With Tomorrowland‘s lifeless fantasy world, bland characters, second-rate special effects, forced dialogue, and uninspired story, your own future will undoubtedly be better off if it doesn’t involve ever watching this movie.
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
With the star talent of George Clooney, the directorial skill of Brad Bird, and the film’s promising trailers, I must admit that I was caught off guard by Tomorrowland‘s lackluster execution. The greatest compliment I can give the film is that it’s blandly passable, but in no area is it particularly good, engaging, or thought-provoking. For being a film that is about celebrating creativity, it sure is lacking in that regard. Tomorrowland itself feels like a poorly-realized pipe dream. It’s supposed to be this wonderfully ingenious world of innovation, but nothing about it struck me as notably exciting or exceptional. From the surface, it looks like your typical futuristic metropolis, complete with jetpacks and flying cars. Beyond that, I couldn’t really tell you what makes Tomorrowland so special, and I believe that’s largely because we’re given so little access to it. The movie treats us as outsiders to this place, and we spend the majority of the film tagging alongside the two main characters as they try to get in, but we’re never given any sort of rewarding payoff once we get there. The world of Tomorrowland is practically nothing more than a shallow, fantasy world facade.
The movie starts off with an uncomfortably awkward recruitment video recorded by Tomorrowland’s two main characters, Frank Walker (George Clooney) and Casey Newton (Britt Robertson), in which they argue over how they should tell their story. It’s a poor attempt at humor with banter that feels entirely forced. If anything, this overly long introduction should have served as an early indicator that I was about to embark on a two-hour snooze-fest. From there we transition to each of their character’s respective origin stories, and their separate journeys that led them to Tomorrowland.
Frank’s story takes us to the 1964 World’s Fair at Disneyland where as a young boy he’s trying to enter with his faulty jetpack creation. His invention is rejected, but he still manages to catch the attention of a girl named Athena, who gives him a special pin with the Tomorrowland logo. Young Frank is ordered to secretly follow her in the theme park, leading to the “It’s A Small World” ride, where he’s magically transported to Tomorrowland. Here we’re given our first glimpse of this futuristic world, but the entire sequence isn’t nearly as fun or awe-inspiring as it should be. Frank takes to the skies in his newly-repaired jetpack and yet this significant moment somehow winds up feeling surprisingly empty. The movie fails to capture that youthful element of whimsy and excitement that comes from discovery.
Next we learn the much more recent story of Casey, an enthusiastic high school student with a passion for making the world a better place. She’s the daughter of a struggling inventor who gets herself in trouble with the law after trying to sabotage the government’s planned demolition of a NASA launch pad. Once bailed out of jail, Casey finds a mysterious Tomorrowland token among her belongings, and upon touching it, she is magically transported to a wheat field with the distinguished metropolis of Tomorrowland in the distance. However, when trying to reach this futuristic city, she finds that boundaries in the real world inhibit her in this golden future world, even though she cannot see them while holding the token. It’s a novel idea, and one of the movie’s better moments, but if you’ve seen the film’s trailers then you’ve already seen most of how it plays out.
The trailers also spoiled Tomorrowland‘s best, and arguably only good action sequence, in which androids invade Frank’s house in an attempt to capture Casey, who possesses that coveted Tomorrowland token. It’s a well-crafted and exciting moment that demonstrates Brad Bird’s talent, but it’s also an unfortunately rare instance of entertainment in what is otherwise a dull film. As for the aforementioned androids, they’re unbelievably cheesy and lame. These robot villains are sourced from the pinnacle of technological advancement, and yet they’re remarkably derivative and hokey. The most original thing about them is that they blink their eyelids alternatively. That’s some real cutting edge creativity right there! To top it off, Tomorrowland even throws in an android-to-human love story for good measure, because why not? Robots need love too, you guys!
You know what the most troubling thing about Tomorrowland is for me? The fact that Brad Bird was the very first choice to direct Star Wars: Episode 7 and he turned it down to make this movie instead. That is almost incomprehensible to me. Even more so when you consider that Tomorrowland features a comic book store scene that is literally brimming with Star Wars props. It’s a decision that may come back to haunt him, but given how poor this movie is, I’m now actually thanking my lucky Death Stars that he’s not the one making the upcoming Star Wars: The Force Awakens.
In the end, Tomorrowland is a movie that I don’t feel any connection to. I wasn’t captivated by the characters or the performances (not even George Clooney could save this one). The plot was a total bore. The sci-fi elements missed the mark. The visuals were mostly just decent, and tended to look more fake than impressive. The underlying message of hope was weak, and please, don’t even get me started on that cliché “two wolves” story that was needlessly tacked in. Nothing about the movie ever reminded me of the actual Tomorrowland from Disneyland Park, nor did it share its level of creativity. The longer the movie went on, the more I wanted it to end. I can honestly tell you that I have had more enjoyment standing in line for two hours for a ride in Disneyland’s Tomorrowland than I ever had while watching this movie. If this is how dull our ideal future is going to be, then sign me up for a front row ticket to the apocalypse where the future belongs to the mad!
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 5.26.15.)
Jessalyn Joy (118 KP) rated The Circle in Books
Aug 28, 2017
AWESOME!
Well, when I first saw it was a movie I was excited. But then when I saw it was a book I was curious. I then checked it out from the Aplington library. When I was done with the previous book I started reading The Circle immediately. I was immediately interested because at the beginning we read about Mae. A young woman who has arrived at The Circle for her first day on the job. I have told friends and family who I have talked about the book to and I am going to say it here. It is an extremely well detailed book. It's incredible. I never got bored with the book. It surprised me throughout. I would recommend this to anyone no matter what their reading interests are. I would recommend for high schoolers up to adults. Also, being in highs school already I think this would be a great book for a high school English class. I thought the characters were incredible and incredibly described. The plot was very well written and like I said earlier never bored me.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Gorgo (1961) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018
The poster tagline 'Like nothing you've ever seen before' is really pushing it a bit considering this British suitamation movie is composed almost entirely of bits from other, better-known films. Generations of British people have grown up believing they've seen a proper Godzilla film when in fact they were just exposed to this in their childhood. On the other hand, Eugene Lourie also directed The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, one of the original Godzilla's main inspirations, so you could say he's just repeating himself rather than actually being derivative.
Soundly scripted with a decent twist and pretty good performances, and the devastation of London by Gorgo's mum in the final reel is well-staged. Persistent rumour suggests that a young John Carpenter made an unofficial sequel, Gorgo Vs Godzilla, but no-one seems to know for sure if this even exists - shame, as on the strength of this outing Gorgo and his mum had potential for their own series. Only really of interest to fans of vintage monster movies, but a distinctive and rather distinguished entry to this genre.
Soundly scripted with a decent twist and pretty good performances, and the devastation of London by Gorgo's mum in the final reel is well-staged. Persistent rumour suggests that a young John Carpenter made an unofficial sequel, Gorgo Vs Godzilla, but no-one seems to know for sure if this even exists - shame, as on the strength of this outing Gorgo and his mum had potential for their own series. Only really of interest to fans of vintage monster movies, but a distinctive and rather distinguished entry to this genre.
Tim McGuire (301 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Jan 21, 2020
379. Underwater. A straight to the action, claustrophobic thriller. Story begins with scantily clad Norah getting ready to start her shift at the laboratory at the bottom of the ocean. And by the sudden alarms going off and the entire structure rocking back and forth, something went wrong. it's an earthquake, and its tearing the place apart. And so it's on to find others and to get to escape pods. Oh the earthquake also woke something up down there, and it's big. Who knows maybe its there just to say hi to the new neighbors, but it doesn't really look that way. Because the movie mainly focuses on action, we never really get to see Kristen Stewart make that awkward face, you know what I mean, so that was a plus. TJ Miller was in it, as some kind of odd man-baby scientist, so I thought that was pretty stupid. Overall it was a decent action sci fi flick. Just remember like a famous Jedi once said: "There's always a bigger fish." Filmbufftim on FB.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Spiderwick Chronicles (2008) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
Consider me charmed, as far as 𝘏𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘺 𝘗𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳/𝘕𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘢 ripoffs go - you could do a whole lot worse. Story is intermittently intriguing but way too slight for what this wants to be, with lore and creature design *this* vivid it needed to be way more fleshed out. But I also recognize that if this were made today, they would have needlessly stretched out and sterilized this one-movie story into five distended cash grabs - er, I mean - 'movies' until any sense of purpose and enjoyability becomes unrecognizable, so I abstain. I'd much rather this have become a franchise as opposed to 𝘍𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘉𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘴, firstly because Freddie Highmore can actually act (he's awesome here in both roles) whereas Eddie Redmayne is perhaps the only Oscar nominee who's never given a good performance. Looks absolutely dazzling, and the voice acting is A-class - just a really fun time all-around. Simple but effective, and I haven't even mentioned how many goblins get gruesomely murdered/dismembered/burned/eaten alive/melted/stabbed/ran over in this.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Avengers - Season 5 in TV
Oct 22, 2020
The Avengers' fifth season opens with a fabricated alien invasion and concludes with a shrink-gun, and while the odd more serious and down-to-earth episode sneaks in, this sort of sums up the scope of the series at this point: a mixture of B-movie sci-fi, extravagant whimsy, and knowing wit. As in the previous year, dapper security operative John Steed is assisted in his investigations by Mrs Emma Peel.
However, not quite up to the standard of the previous year - the show now seems pitched towards the American networks, hence the move to rather garish colour, and it's often much more knockabout as a result. The fact that most of the episodes are written by either Philip Levene or Brian Clemens also results in a certain reliance on formula - the show even resorts to remaking some of the earlier videotaped stories to avoid having to come up with brand new scripts. However, episodes like The Hidden Tiger and Epic still stand up as well as anything in the run of the series.
However, not quite up to the standard of the previous year - the show now seems pitched towards the American networks, hence the move to rather garish colour, and it's often much more knockabout as a result. The fact that most of the episodes are written by either Philip Levene or Brian Clemens also results in a certain reliance on formula - the show even resorts to remaking some of the earlier videotaped stories to avoid having to come up with brand new scripts. However, episodes like The Hidden Tiger and Epic still stand up as well as anything in the run of the series.
Adam (Riding Hard, #1)
6.0
Rate It
Book
Stuntman Adam Campbell returns home to Riverbend, Texas, after being seriously injured in a movie...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
It’s hard to believe that the first Incredibles by Disney Pixar debuted all the way back in 2004, and for those of you counting that’s over 14 years ago. Featuring the vibrant animation and incredible voice acting that only Disney Pixar can offer, we find ourselves once again sharing a grand adventure with this lovable superhero family. This will be a spoiler free review so feel free to read on and prepare for a journey of epic proportions.
Not much has changed since we last left off with the original Incredibles. Superheroes are still outlawed, seemingly because the damage they cause when fighting crime is far more expensive than the actual crime itself. This is proven in the very first scene of the movie, where our crime fighting family attempts to stop a bank robbery and they end up causing more havoc and mayhem than would have occurred had they not been involved at all. It seems there isn’t a place anywhere left in the world for superheroes…or is there?
The family is then offered an opportunity to prove how important superheroes are to the world and the impact they can have on the good of humanity. This mission only needs the talents of Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) however, so Elastigirl goes off to fight crime while Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) stays back at the homestead to take care of the three kids.
As with all Pixar movies, Incredibles 2 is far more than simply a cute movie about a family of crime fighting heroes. It is about how Mr. Incredible must learn to be a hero by taking care of his family instead of fighting crime. It shows how even without a secret identity and super suit that a parent helping their kids with “new math” or reading them a bedtime story can makes them the greatest hero of all. I loved that the underlying message to this movie was that being there for your family is as equally as important as saving the town from the next evil menace.
In a similar reversal of roles, Elastigirl takes on the role of the family provider. While she excels with her superhero duties, she struggles with not always being there for her kids. For Elastigirl it’s about letting go and trusting that her husband and family can learn to manage on their own when she can’t be there. We also learn that sometimes being a hero means making sacrifices for the good of the family as a whole.
As you’d expect from any film with Pixar behind it, the animation is beautiful and colorful. I would warn those that might be sensitive to strobe lights to be a bit cautious during a few scenes. There weren’t any warnings for those who might be photosensitive, and the scenes don’t last long, but I feel it’s still important to note. As already mentioned, the voice acting is also excellent. Sarah Vowell does a great job as Violet and Huck Milner is adorable as the voice of Dash. As you might have already guessed, Samuel L. Jackson does an outstanding job at reprising his role of Frozone. Unfortunately, Frozone isn’t in the movie too much but he definitely steals any scene he is in. The story was fun, entertaining and at times downright hilarious. Even though baby Jack-Jack hasn’t been a big part of this review, he is a huge part of the movie. Jack-Jack’s emerging powers mean an even greater challenge for everyone and some of the most entertaining scenes revolve around Jack-Jack and his ever-growing list of powers.
Incredibles 2 is a heartwarming film that shows us all that heroes come in different shapes and sizes, and how important it is for everyone to come together as a family in order to succeed at life (and occasionally take down a bad guy). It’s a worthy successor to the original in every way and will certainly appeal to both young and old alike. So, gather up your own superhero family and run/fly/warp your way to see Incredibles 2 when it releases in theatres on June 15th!
Not much has changed since we last left off with the original Incredibles. Superheroes are still outlawed, seemingly because the damage they cause when fighting crime is far more expensive than the actual crime itself. This is proven in the very first scene of the movie, where our crime fighting family attempts to stop a bank robbery and they end up causing more havoc and mayhem than would have occurred had they not been involved at all. It seems there isn’t a place anywhere left in the world for superheroes…or is there?
The family is then offered an opportunity to prove how important superheroes are to the world and the impact they can have on the good of humanity. This mission only needs the talents of Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) however, so Elastigirl goes off to fight crime while Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) stays back at the homestead to take care of the three kids.
As with all Pixar movies, Incredibles 2 is far more than simply a cute movie about a family of crime fighting heroes. It is about how Mr. Incredible must learn to be a hero by taking care of his family instead of fighting crime. It shows how even without a secret identity and super suit that a parent helping their kids with “new math” or reading them a bedtime story can makes them the greatest hero of all. I loved that the underlying message to this movie was that being there for your family is as equally as important as saving the town from the next evil menace.
In a similar reversal of roles, Elastigirl takes on the role of the family provider. While she excels with her superhero duties, she struggles with not always being there for her kids. For Elastigirl it’s about letting go and trusting that her husband and family can learn to manage on their own when she can’t be there. We also learn that sometimes being a hero means making sacrifices for the good of the family as a whole.
As you’d expect from any film with Pixar behind it, the animation is beautiful and colorful. I would warn those that might be sensitive to strobe lights to be a bit cautious during a few scenes. There weren’t any warnings for those who might be photosensitive, and the scenes don’t last long, but I feel it’s still important to note. As already mentioned, the voice acting is also excellent. Sarah Vowell does a great job as Violet and Huck Milner is adorable as the voice of Dash. As you might have already guessed, Samuel L. Jackson does an outstanding job at reprising his role of Frozone. Unfortunately, Frozone isn’t in the movie too much but he definitely steals any scene he is in. The story was fun, entertaining and at times downright hilarious. Even though baby Jack-Jack hasn’t been a big part of this review, he is a huge part of the movie. Jack-Jack’s emerging powers mean an even greater challenge for everyone and some of the most entertaining scenes revolve around Jack-Jack and his ever-growing list of powers.
Incredibles 2 is a heartwarming film that shows us all that heroes come in different shapes and sizes, and how important it is for everyone to come together as a family in order to succeed at life (and occasionally take down a bad guy). It’s a worthy successor to the original in every way and will certainly appeal to both young and old alike. So, gather up your own superhero family and run/fly/warp your way to see Incredibles 2 when it releases in theatres on June 15th!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“When the man comes around”
At last – a superhero movie with real heart… (and not just the chunks over the knuckle blades!). Logan is a bit of a revelation. I was reluctant to go and see it, since a) I’m a lukewarm X-Men fan at best and b) I hadn’t seen either of the previous two Wolverine spin-off films. (Seeing the other Wolverine films, by the way, is not a pre-requisite for enjoying this one). After a long day at work, my choice was “Logan” or “Kong: Skull Island”. I voted for this one, and I’m so glad I did.
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….
It’s now 2029. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine, but this is not a Wolverine we have seen before. This is an aged and deteriorating superhero: his self-healing powers are waning; a limp is developing; and his fighting prowess (although still legendary) doesn’t show the stamina it once did. This is a Wolverine that is also an unlikely carer, looking after a mentally degenerating Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90 years old and finding it increasingly difficult to keep his devastating mental superpowers under control. This is a Wolverine trying desperately to avoid the limelight, working diligently as a limo-driver in an effort to save money for the dream of buying a ‘Sunseeker’ and sailing off with Xavier into the sunset, gaining true anonymity among the boating fraternity.
Life doesn’t play ball though. A brutal encounter with a gang on the highway outside El Paso advertises Wolverine’s presence and brings him into contact with a strange eleven-year-old girl (Dafne Keen) with impressive powers of her own. The girl is being pursued by a “reiver” (Boyd Holbrook, “Run all Night”) supported by a small private army. Against his will, Wolverine is forced into a memorable road trip with the old man and the young girl that leaves a trail of bloodied bodies behind them.
For, be warned, this is an *extremely* violent film, with much dismemberment and ‘blade work’ that must have kept the prosthetics department busy for months. It’s also quite emotionally brutal, particularly within a central segment set in a “Field of Dreams” style idyll (featuring Eriq La Salle from E.R.) that you know in your gut is not going to end with “Goodnight John Boy” pleasantries.
The well-choreographed and frenetic action within the road-trip segment reminded me at times of the harsh cinematography and dynamics of “Mad Max: Fury Road” – a great compliment.
But the film also takes time to pause, in uncharacteristic Marvel-ways, for character development and genuinely intelligent dialogue. These interludes allow the acting to shine, and it is first-rate. We all know (from “Les Miserables” for instance) that Hugh Jackman can act, but this is arguably his best-ever performance: a meaty role (he actually has two in the film) that affords him tremendous range and emotion. At one point towards the end of the film I thought “this has genuine Oscar show-reel potential”. He will surely never get nominated – a Marvel film? Get Away! But wouldn’t it make a refreshing change if he was? Recognizing good acting, regardless of the context.
Patrick Stewart is a great Shakespearean actor, and here he also gets given full rein to impress as he hasn’t had chance to in most of his movie roles to date.
Claiming the prize so far this year for the most unusual casting decision is Stephen Merchant as the albino helper Caliban, unrecognizable to me at first until he had some lengthy dialogue to flex his Bristol accent on! A non-comic and dramatic role, Merchant does really well with it.
Finally, I can’t leave the acting without doffing my cap to young Dafne Keen whose mesmerising feral stare would probably put the fear of God into every parent of a pre-teen girl! Even though she has only a handful of lines, this is an impressive feature film debut. I predict we will see much more of this young lady.
Less convincing to me was Richard E Grant as the evil mastermind behind the scheme, who never quite seemed nasty enough to me to be believable: in one scene he could be calling back a dog that’s run off down the beach rather than desperately trying to gain control of an out of control situation!
Directed by James Mangold (“Walk the Line”, “Knight and Day”), who co-wrote the piece with Scott Frank (“Minority Report”) and Michael Green (“Green Lantern”… yes, really!), this was a gritty and well constructed movie. If you can stomach the gore and the body count (I would see it as very lucky to have got away with its UK ’15’ certificate) this is a rollercoaster of a movie that is recommended.
By the way, to save you from sitting through the end titles (although you do get a Johnny Cash classic to enjoy) there is no “monkey” at the end of this Marvel film. (I’m no stranger to still be sitting there as the lights come up… but many of the crowd that were left looked vaguely embarrassed!)
In terms of my rating, I’m not a fanboy for Marvel or DC properties, but here I award a rating I have only previously bestowed on two superhero films before: the quirky “Ant Man” and the anarchic “Deadpool“….