Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Iron Man 2 picks up right where the first one left off, and manages to continue the enjoyment without losing too much steam in the process. Jon Favreau has kept the exciting action, lost a bit of character development, but added more of a comic-book dimension to the film series.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
The plot was slow to start, but once you see how events start fitting together for the eventual showdown, the movie picks up speed and leads in for a very satisfying finish. Thankfully, there weren’t too many slow moments (this is an action movie, after all), and the plot flowed well from scene to scene. The action-packed ending more than makes up for any slow moments toward the beginning.
The interplay between the characters definitely felt more formal than the first film. Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character with just as much snarky humor and snide dialogue as he did in the first film, but he seems to play his dramatic scenes with less emphasis than the first. Don Cheadle, as Colonel Rhodes, continues with the memorable character that Terrence Howard defined, but doesn’t come into his own until near the finale. Scarlett Johansson performs the part of the sultry and mysterious Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff quite well, although aside from one stunning action scene, her role is relatively minor compared to the rest of the cast. The villains, Ivan Vanko, played by Mickey Rourke; and Justin Hammer, played by Sam Rockwell, more than match their opposition on screen. Rockwell in particular is absolutely fantastic in his portrayal: totally believable, animated, and fun to watch. I just wish everyone had his enthusiasm for the film, because I sensed less emotion this time around.
Iron Man 2 also has much more of a comic-book feel than the previous movie. Marvel fans will notice quite a few more nods to the Marvel Universe, but even more than that, Iron Man feels more like the fantastic character that he is when he has a properly villainous opponent. In the end, this film is a fitting sequel that nearly matches it’s predecessor.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Room in Books
May 10, 2018
Jack is five years old and to him Room is his entire world. He lives in Room with his Ma, Joy, and calls each inanimate object by it's name, toilet, sink, table, plant, etc. What Jack doesn't know is that his Ma was kidnapped 7 years ago and was brought to Room and hasn't left since. No one knows she is there and no one knows Jack exists. When Joy decides it's time to make a great escape, she has to tell Jack about the outside world. Up until now, he has thought everything outside of Room was only on TV. He doesn't know that there are really other people and a great big world outside the walls of Room. Will the plan Joy has mapped out work? How will their lives change if they are able to get away? What happens if they don't?
Room has been on my TBR for a very long time. I have no idea why I didn't read it sooner, I loved it. The book made me laugh and cry. I also watched the movie, which as usual was not as good as the book, but still it was a good movie.
I love that the book was told from Jack's perspective. Getting to see him learn the world for the first time is interesting and exciting. You feel for his mother and all that she has to endure just to keep Jack safe. They look forward to "Sunday Treat" from Old Nick, their capture, they move all the furniture around in the house to run track and stay healthy. Even though the TV is the only connection they have to the outside world, she still limits Jack's time on it so it won't rot his brain.
If you haven't read Room, I suggest you pick up a copy right away. Read the book and then see the movie. The only other book I have read by Emma Donoghue is [bc:Frog Music|18295858|Frog Music|Emma Donoghue|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1393227215s/18295858.jpg|25778638]
Room has been on my TBR for a very long time. I have no idea why I didn't read it sooner, I loved it. The book made me laugh and cry. I also watched the movie, which as usual was not as good as the book, but still it was a good movie.
I love that the book was told from Jack's perspective. Getting to see him learn the world for the first time is interesting and exciting. You feel for his mother and all that she has to endure just to keep Jack safe. They look forward to "Sunday Treat" from Old Nick, their capture, they move all the furniture around in the house to run track and stay healthy. Even though the TV is the only connection they have to the outside world, she still limits Jack's time on it so it won't rot his brain.
If you haven't read Room, I suggest you pick up a copy right away. Read the book and then see the movie. The only other book I have read by Emma Donoghue is [bc:Frog Music|18295858|Frog Music|Emma Donoghue|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1393227215s/18295858.jpg|25778638]
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Just Another Gangster Movie
Story: The Irishman starts with Frank Sheeran (De Niro) recounting his time working under Russell Bufalino (Pesci) starting as a meat delivery man, a chance encounter with Russell brings them together. Russell was the guy that if anybody wanted something done, he would give the green light and expect it done.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
Frank continued to rise working under the infamous Jimmy Hoffa (Pacino) who was in battle with the Kennedy’s who were trying to find a way to take down his unions, which does see Frank become the president of his own region.
Thoughts on The Irishman
Characters – Frank Sheeran is the narrator who is looking back through his life as he started as delivery driver before finding himself joining the mobs in the Italian neighbourhood, rising up the ranks from the bottom becoming one of the closest members of Jimmy Hoffa go to man, one of the most trusted hitmen in the mob. Jimmy Hoffa is the man that runs the unions, he has the attention of the Kennedy’s who have never trusted his business, he will always find a way to get his side of the story through without ever getting his hands dirty. He expects respect from everybody he deals with and will give it back, before he runs for office. Russell Bufalino is the one that gives Frank enter into the criminal world, a chance meeting opens the door and he will give the instructions Frank to follow. Peggy is the daughter of Frank that has grown up seeing his action become worse over the years.
Performances – The performances here are almost flawless, we get three of the greatest gangster movie performers in De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, you simply wouldn’t expect anything less from the three. The supporting cast is also wonderful, where once again the acting isn’t the weak part of the film.
Story – The story here follows Frank Sheeran’s rise from delivery man to hitman under one of the leaders of the mobs through the 60’s and 70’s America. Most of the story is Frank recounting his career in the mob, seeing how he often watched the biggest moments in the background, only getting his hands dirty when he needs to. We do need to talk about the length of the film because there is a huge problem here, we have so many scenes we don’t really need, we do also end up going through the routine that every single gangster movie does, which just makes it feel like something we have seen before. The timeline does fill in the random deaths with a headline on screen, even if that person is only in one scene.
Biopic/Crime – We do get to learn the life’s story of a notorious hitman through his own eyes, we see how he isn’t completely good, but he is loyal and always tries to do the right thing in the middle of the criminal world.
Settings – The settings takes us back to the eras we are going through, we have the glamourous locations for parties, the small street locations that show us where the dirty work gets done and a location which means everything to Frank, where it all started.
Scene of the Movie – The taxis.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is just too long.
Final Thoughts – This is a gangster film that gets heavyweight performances in a story that we have seen before that does seem to drag along for way too long.
Overall: Long Drawn Out Gangster Film.
SC
Superstar Cats
Book
Your pets can rival movie stars with these easy tricks from the trainer behind Harry Potter and Game...
DiamondMobile
Finance and Productivity
App
The Diamond Mobile App is an innovative mobile application that allows users access their accounts...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
May 25, 2019 (Updated May 25, 2019)
" You are my World"
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ultimate Edition review
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was really unlucky. Not only did the movie hit the market during the heyday of the MCU, it also had to be cut for the cinema by 30 Minutes. Too bad, because this movie could not stand against the Marvelhype, let alone convince critics and viewers with the holey story of the theatrical version. After all, Warner bros has released an Ultimate Edition, in which you can see this movie in its true splendor. And the film in this cut is still one of the best superhero movies for me.
Let's start with the most obvious. The soundtrack of the movie is more than great. Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL have created an incredibly exciting, suitable and just really good soundtrack. You can listen to this at the beginning, during the Opening Credits sequence. If only briefly, but effectively, as the fate of the young Bruce Wayne is shown. This is already known from other Batman films, but it is especially important for this movie. But more on that later.
The rest of the Sountrack kicked ass consistently. Whether it's The Red Capes Are Coming, Is She With You or Beautiful Lie, everything is great!
Ben Affleck as Batman is perfect. His acting is really good, he convinces in every second, with every emotion. In addition, Henry Cavill here again shows what he can do as supes and it's awesome. Jeremy Irons as Alfred is great too, he plays Alfred really well and I liked him alot. Even Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter and the usual suspects like Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix are great.
The action in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is also spectacular . Whether the great Batmobile chase, the battle of the giants or the final battle against Doomsday. In addition the action was clear and not too fast cut, so that one could follow and admire everything well!
Of course, the action was always supported by the successful effects. Everything looked great at all times. Doomsday may take some getting used to, but I found the effects good at all times!
I would also like to mention the humor, which is rather rare, but nevertheless effective and well placed.
I would also like to mention the introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League. I thought it was good and logical that Luthor has the information about the meta-beings and so Batman came to this, although he was actually looking for something else.
I also liked how the events in Man of Steel influenced this movie! But more on that later.
Incidentally, I think the already mentioned Opening Credits sequence is really good. At the same time showing the death of Bruce's parents and his meeting on the bats with Beautiful Lie in the background, I found a very successful and convincing start to this masterpiece!
Now I would like to come to the story, with which unfortunately most have problems. Because I find it consistently great!
Already at the beginning you can see how Bruce witnesses the death of his parents and how his dying father only says "Martha". This already shows directly that Batman is traumatized. This can also be seen by his dependence on alcohol and medication. With the appearance of Superman and the destruction of Metropolis that Bruce witnessed, he begins to despise Superman.
Lex Luthor, who through his many means knows who Batman and Superman are, tries to incite them against each other. But why? Because he was abused as a child by his father, now he's just crazy and wants to kill him because of his powerlessness over Superman. For in his world absolute power can not be innocent, and that power Superman has. And since Luthor knows he can not kill him, he wants Batman to do it.
And it is precisely this impotence that drives Bruce to despise Superman.
With the help of the attack, a few letters and the kidnapping of Martha Kent and Lois Lane, Lex then manages to fight day and night. Every move, every murder, everything was well thought out and planned. I think both Lex Luthor and his plan are well implemented here. In my eyes, without any logic holes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, especially in the first half is a superhero drama in which the world wonders if it needs Superman at all and in which there is anger in Batman, Lex Luthor and so on Superman is dammed and unloaded in the explosive finale! All characters act absolutely sensible, natural and human.
I would like to go into the Martha scene.
How can anyone make fun of such a serious scene? Superman has to kill Batman to save Martha, his mother. But when he is defeated, he only wants to ask Batman to save his mother. In saying his name, Bruce unleashes his traumatic memory, the death of his parents, in which his father says his last word, "Martha." And when Lois says that Martha (Kent) is Superman's mother, Batman realizes that Superman also has a human side, and that he is even more human than himself. He also notices that his anger was meaningless. And to save Martha and stop Lex, they both come together. What is wrong with that? I think that's great!
All in all, in conclusion, I can only say again that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an outstanding superhero action drama! Wonderfully written, performed and filmed.
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was really unlucky. Not only did the movie hit the market during the heyday of the MCU, it also had to be cut for the cinema by 30 Minutes. Too bad, because this movie could not stand against the Marvelhype, let alone convince critics and viewers with the holey story of the theatrical version. After all, Warner bros has released an Ultimate Edition, in which you can see this movie in its true splendor. And the film in this cut is still one of the best superhero movies for me.
Let's start with the most obvious. The soundtrack of the movie is more than great. Hans Zimmer and Junkie XL have created an incredibly exciting, suitable and just really good soundtrack. You can listen to this at the beginning, during the Opening Credits sequence. If only briefly, but effectively, as the fate of the young Bruce Wayne is shown. This is already known from other Batman films, but it is especially important for this movie. But more on that later.
The rest of the Sountrack kicked ass consistently. Whether it's The Red Capes Are Coming, Is She With You or Beautiful Lie, everything is great!
Ben Affleck as Batman is perfect. His acting is really good, he convinces in every second, with every emotion. In addition, Henry Cavill here again shows what he can do as supes and it's awesome. Jeremy Irons as Alfred is great too, he plays Alfred really well and I liked him alot. Even Amy Adams, Gal Gadot, Holly Hunter and the usual suspects like Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix are great.
The action in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is also spectacular . Whether the great Batmobile chase, the battle of the giants or the final battle against Doomsday. In addition the action was clear and not too fast cut, so that one could follow and admire everything well!
Of course, the action was always supported by the successful effects. Everything looked great at all times. Doomsday may take some getting used to, but I found the effects good at all times!
I would also like to mention the humor, which is rather rare, but nevertheless effective and well placed.
I would also like to mention the introduction of Wonder Woman and the rest of the Justice League. I thought it was good and logical that Luthor has the information about the meta-beings and so Batman came to this, although he was actually looking for something else.
I also liked how the events in Man of Steel influenced this movie! But more on that later.
Incidentally, I think the already mentioned Opening Credits sequence is really good. At the same time showing the death of Bruce's parents and his meeting on the bats with Beautiful Lie in the background, I found a very successful and convincing start to this masterpiece!
Now I would like to come to the story, with which unfortunately most have problems. Because I find it consistently great!
Already at the beginning you can see how Bruce witnesses the death of his parents and how his dying father only says "Martha". This already shows directly that Batman is traumatized. This can also be seen by his dependence on alcohol and medication. With the appearance of Superman and the destruction of Metropolis that Bruce witnessed, he begins to despise Superman.
Lex Luthor, who through his many means knows who Batman and Superman are, tries to incite them against each other. But why? Because he was abused as a child by his father, now he's just crazy and wants to kill him because of his powerlessness over Superman. For in his world absolute power can not be innocent, and that power Superman has. And since Luthor knows he can not kill him, he wants Batman to do it.
And it is precisely this impotence that drives Bruce to despise Superman.
With the help of the attack, a few letters and the kidnapping of Martha Kent and Lois Lane, Lex then manages to fight day and night. Every move, every murder, everything was well thought out and planned. I think both Lex Luthor and his plan are well implemented here. In my eyes, without any logic holes, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, especially in the first half is a superhero drama in which the world wonders if it needs Superman at all and in which there is anger in Batman, Lex Luthor and so on Superman is dammed and unloaded in the explosive finale! All characters act absolutely sensible, natural and human.
I would like to go into the Martha scene.
How can anyone make fun of such a serious scene? Superman has to kill Batman to save Martha, his mother. But when he is defeated, he only wants to ask Batman to save his mother. In saying his name, Bruce unleashes his traumatic memory, the death of his parents, in which his father says his last word, "Martha." And when Lois says that Martha (Kent) is Superman's mother, Batman realizes that Superman also has a human side, and that he is even more human than himself. He also notices that his anger was meaningless. And to save Martha and stop Lex, they both come together. What is wrong with that? I think that's great!
All in all, in conclusion, I can only say again that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is an outstanding superhero action drama! Wonderfully written, performed and filmed.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Ghosts of War (2020) in Movies
Nov 9, 2020
The ending is worth it
Ghosts of War follows a group of American soldiers as they make their way to take up post at a French chateau towards the end of the Second World War, and encounter much more than they bargained for in this slightly above average B movie.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.
Right from the start, this opens with your usual cliched group of soldiers that you’d find in any war film. Brenton Thwaites is Chris, the boss and leader, you have Skylar Astin as Eugene, the brains/intellectual, Kyle Gallner as the odd and trouble sniper Tappert, Alan Ritchson as a typical macho man and finally Theo Rossi as the filler. So far, so generic, and other than Tappert who gets a decent bit of creepy character development later on, the rest of the main group are virtually one dimensional. Which is a shame as the cast are a decent group of actors that have been let down by the poor writing. Although I did enjoy Billy Zane popping up with a intentionally cheesy blink and you’ll miss it cameo as a Nazi with horrific German accent.
The film begins like your typical war movie; a group of soldiers working their way across country to reach their destination. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before. However what helps lift this is a rather moving and poignant opening quote, and a score that accompanies this very well. The score in this would be at home on any dramatic war film, and almost seems out of place in a horror film. It gives this a feeling that it’s a lot more epic and grand than it actually turns out to be.
What really drags this film down is when the group arrive at the aforementioned chateau and begin to experience all of the supernatural going’s on. Aside from a a couple of potentially creepy scenes, the jump scares are tired and predictable and the ghosts look like every other spook that’s been in a modern day horror film recently. It reeks of a below average, typical ghost film with some hit and miss special effects (albeit with an respectable amount of blood and gore) and had it continued on like this, it would’ve been completely forgettable. However throughout the scenes in the chateau there are hints that there is something deeper and more sinister going on, and it starts to pick up again when the group encounter a party of Nazi soldiers trying to enter the building. Things start to get a little weird and confusing and then a big reveal in the last 20 minutes completely shifts this film into something you never expected. I didn’t see this particular twist coming and for me, this made this movie more than just a sub par horror film. The reveal has been met with mixed reviews from critics and reviews alike, but I think it injects some much needed enjoyment and intrigue – it’s just a shame we have to wait over an hour to get there. The entire twist and ending is rather disturbing and also quite moving and emotional, and the final scene, whilst one we’ve seen done many times before, did make this a satisfying and darkly entertaining end.
Ghosts of War starts off as a below average clichéd war horror film, however it you can get through the first hour, the ending packs a decent, enjoyable and rather surprising punch. It’s just a shame the first two acts don’t match up to the ending.