Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Killing Ground (2016) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Story: Killing Ground starts when couple Ian (Meadows) and Samantha (Dyer) head off for a romantic camping trip, learning they are not the only couple on the grounds they look to stay out of the others way, only to never see them return to their grounds. Scotty (Pedersen) and Tood (Glenane) are two locals of the area that come off shady, also have had run ins with the law.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.
We know something happened to the family in the camp next door and when Ian and Samantha find their baby wandering around the area. Soon they will be fighting for their lives against the criminal psychopaths that enjoy hunting.
Thoughts on Killing Ground
Characters – Ian is a doctor who along with his girlfriend goes on the camping trip, he knows how to survive any injuries which makes him the one that could help survive the attack because o his logical decision making process. Samantha is the girlfriend that is using the trip for a big moment only to find herself needing to fight to survive. Scotty is the one of the two which seems to be the mastermind, well leader of the two who knows how to control the situation and Tood. Tood is the loose cannon, who comes off simple minded at times and other times he comes off like the psychopath he is meant to be.
Performances – The performances in this film do come off real, we believe the couple Ian Meadows & Harriet Dyer with each decision they must make, we also get scared of both the Aaron’s who gives us uneasy performances through the whole film.
Story – The story here follows three lines to start with, we have the couple heading of to their romantic camping trip, the family on their camping trip, that we know something happens to and the two men who will be committing the crime. To start with this felt annoying, I won’t lie, but soon this just builds the tension through the film as we just want to know what happens, with each twist that connection the stories becoming unsettling. We see the aftermath of what has happened over just putting us through the events, which only continues to make everything extra disturbing. This is a type of story we have seen before, though the fresh approach to this only makes this more interesting to watch even if you want to look away.
Horror – This is easily one of the most disturbing horror films you will see, when you stop to think about anything that happens, what you end up feeling is just uneasy because of what happens off camera, with the tension only making this harder to get through.
Settings – The film takes place in a remote camping ground which gives us the feeling of isolation, with have no phone signal and the humans might not be the only danger here, this is a perfect use of setting.
Special Effects – The effects are used to make each moment look more horrific, they are subtle and effective.
Scene of the Movie – When the couple plan to leave, we have a wonderful shot of Samantha walking away with somebody desperately needing help behind her.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – I didn’t like the opening moments of the three stories, it does work once we are get going.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most disturbing non-graphic films I have seen, being left to imagine just what happens is even worse than watching it.
Overall: Unsettling and disturbing.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Dad's Army (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Full of wasted British talent
I may be fairly young in years, but I grew up around comedies like Only Fools & Horses, One Foot in the Grave and of course Dad’s Army. I remember many evenings sitting at home with my dad as he cried with laughter at all three, though it was the latter’s influence that stuck with me the most.
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Now, Dad’s Army like so many classic TV shows is getting the silver screen treatment, but does this modern-day reimagining, with an all-star British cast live up to the series that delighted so many for so long?
The movie adaptation of Dad’s Army follows on from the TV series, taking place just before the Second World War comes to an end. In Walmington-On-Sea, the Home Guard, led by Captain Mainwaring must track down a German spy, who is intent on swaying the war in their favour.
A whole host of British talent, young and old, star and each and every one of them slots perfectly into the well-worn shoes of classic characters. From Michael Gambon’s effervescent performance as Godfrey and Toby Jones’ faithful portrayal of Mainwaring to Inbetweeners star Blake Harrison taking on the role of Pike, it feels as though the casting team really put a lot of thought into getting the characteristics right.
It doesn’t stop there, Welsh beauty Catherine Zeta Jones, TV favourite Sarah Lancashire and Victor Meldrew’s long-suffering wife Margaret (Annette Crosbie) all make appearances for the fairer sex, with each bringing something to the table.
The scenery is beautiful, filmed just a couple of hours up the road in Bridlington, East Yorkshire, the normally vibrant seaside town is transformed into 1940s Walmington with an enviable amount of detail. Elsewhere, the White Cliffs of Dover are replicated exceptionally at Flamborough on the east coast.
Unfortunately, the story is a little on the light side, barely managing to stretch to the film’s slightly overlong running time. This is an issue that blights many TV to film projects and it feels like this unbelievably talented cast is somewhat wasted with a fairly run-of-the-mill plot.
It also feels like the comedy is on rations. Yes, it’s nostalgic with constant references to its small-screen counterpart, but it comes across like the producers were too busy trying to shoehorn as many elements of the TV series into the film, without concentrating on what Dad’s Army was all about – laughs.
Nevertheless, there is plenty to enjoy despite a lack of giggles. The acting is, as said previously, remarkable with fans of the series and newcomers alike being able to enjoy the warm, typically British feeling these thespians bring to the film.
Overall, Dad’s Army is a decent, albeit slightly underwhelming, effort in bringing one of the most popular TV shows of all time to the big screen. Its talent and casting are undeniable and the filming style is very impressive, but a lack of attention to the plot and a comedy drought stop it short of achieving what it clearly set out to do.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/07/full-of-wasted-british-talent-dads-army-review/
Sensitivemuse (246 KP) rated Quietus in Books
Feb 28, 2018
Was off to a great start, then goes downhill
Contains spoilers, click to show
***Possible spoilers you have been warned***
I was absolutely into the first half of the book. I loved the dark setting, the dark descent of madness for poor Kylie and trying to figure out what is happening to her and her world. The mood and the setting is dark and meant to be so, this part is excellent and sets the tone of the book. You get the eerie creepy feelings and the writing style is good enough that it could be played out like a movie in your head.
So Kyle as a character is all right. She has her flaws, her marriage has flaws but I’ll be honest to say I really did like her and Jack together. You knew they had major flaws and issues that should have been resolved but they just never got around to it. But their chemistry was excellent and you could feel their love even though sad to say, it was going on a path that just wasn’t meant to be. Although their relationship wasn’t that great to begin with, love was never a problem and they looked and seemed great together but it just wasn’t meant to be.
So let’s get to the plot. It started off on the right foot. Lots of creep factor. The plane crash incident well done. Kylie’s recovery, and the slow descent to what looks like madness (but isn’t) and the book tries to explain this to you while you read. Okay. I can handle this. I wanted to know what happens next.
Then we come across this incident in Kylie’s past that’s coming back to haunt her (see what I did there? Har har) okay. It’s pretty traumatic, and well you did send the guy to death because of a crime he committed so I get it.
Julius though….This guy was a grown man while Kylie was a little girl when he died and all of sudden he’s going all creepy touchy feely and managed to induce this semi wet dream/alternate reality sequence with present day Kylie while she was on public transportation. Yeah. Ok. And stop calling her Kylie Rose. It’s annoying but also creepy in a Pedo kind of way.
So after being introduced to Julius the incubus ghost wannabe the plot just slides down the hill and it becomes almost a chore to read through. I can’t believe this book has to be 608 pages as we already know what’s going on with Kylie and her crew about 200 pages in. It gets too descriptive, too mushy and it attempts to do some sort of surreal thing about life after death yadda yadda yadda.
I tried to like it. I can’t. If you cut the book in half and redid the ending so it wasn’t one long dreary part then the book would have been much better and more enjoyable to read. But this falls so short and it’s unfortunate the theme had promise and even the characters had potential.
I was absolutely into the first half of the book. I loved the dark setting, the dark descent of madness for poor Kylie and trying to figure out what is happening to her and her world. The mood and the setting is dark and meant to be so, this part is excellent and sets the tone of the book. You get the eerie creepy feelings and the writing style is good enough that it could be played out like a movie in your head.
So Kyle as a character is all right. She has her flaws, her marriage has flaws but I’ll be honest to say I really did like her and Jack together. You knew they had major flaws and issues that should have been resolved but they just never got around to it. But their chemistry was excellent and you could feel their love even though sad to say, it was going on a path that just wasn’t meant to be. Although their relationship wasn’t that great to begin with, love was never a problem and they looked and seemed great together but it just wasn’t meant to be.
So let’s get to the plot. It started off on the right foot. Lots of creep factor. The plane crash incident well done. Kylie’s recovery, and the slow descent to what looks like madness (but isn’t) and the book tries to explain this to you while you read. Okay. I can handle this. I wanted to know what happens next.
Then we come across this incident in Kylie’s past that’s coming back to haunt her (see what I did there? Har har) okay. It’s pretty traumatic, and well you did send the guy to death because of a crime he committed so I get it.
Julius though….This guy was a grown man while Kylie was a little girl when he died and all of sudden he’s going all creepy touchy feely and managed to induce this semi wet dream/alternate reality sequence with present day Kylie while she was on public transportation. Yeah. Ok. And stop calling her Kylie Rose. It’s annoying but also creepy in a Pedo kind of way.
So after being introduced to Julius the incubus ghost wannabe the plot just slides down the hill and it becomes almost a chore to read through. I can’t believe this book has to be 608 pages as we already know what’s going on with Kylie and her crew about 200 pages in. It gets too descriptive, too mushy and it attempts to do some sort of surreal thing about life after death yadda yadda yadda.
I tried to like it. I can’t. If you cut the book in half and redid the ending so it wasn’t one long dreary part then the book would have been much better and more enjoyable to read. But this falls so short and it’s unfortunate the theme had promise and even the characters had potential.
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated The City of Shifting Waters (Valérian and Laureline, #1) in Books
Nov 20, 2019
On July 21, 2017, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets came out in theaters the U.S. After watching the movie I found myself intrigued by the characters, world, and the passion shown by the director and writer Luc Besson showed for the project. I took this interest and decided to start reading the comic books. Thus far I have been able to read three of the volumes, as they are French comics they are not usually kept in stores and I have to order them.
The Valerian and Laureline comics follow Valerian, a handsome and cocky time and space traveler, and Laureline, his stubborn and beautiful partner. They travel together across space and time on missions for Galaxity, the capital of the Terran Empire in the 28th century. They explore strange worlds with fascinating creatures, deal with complicated political situations, and take the reader through rewritten history.
I immediately fell in love with the comics for the same reasons I enjoyed the film. The first is that the world that author Pierre Christin and artist Jean-Claude Mezieres created is truly fantastical. It falls under the same sci-fi mixed with fantasy genre that Star Wars is under. The great space galaxy is full of planets that are home to a wide range of alien species, each with complicated politics, cultures, and aesthetics.
The second reason is that I love the relationship between Valerian and Laureline. I am a very character driven person in both my reading and writing so I am a sucker for a good relationship, romantic, familial, or friendship. Valerian and Laureline start the first comic playing chess. Valerian is cocky and does not like to lose, but he is kind and smart and works hard to make the world a better place. Laureline is funny, stubborn, and unlike Valerian, she does not feel the same sense of loyalty to the Terran Empire and therefore is okay with bending the rules to save the most people. They make for a great team, and their fun banter adds to the overall charm of the story.
7810429The first issue of the series was released in 1967 and ran till 2010. Initially, all were written in French but has since been translated into English and several other languages. This series plays with a lot of the sci-fi/fantasy tropes that make you fall in love with stories in the genre, and has even been compared to Star Wars as the basis for several of the ideas used in the Star Wars films, such as the look of some of the characters and situations characters find themselves in.
This is a fun and exciting comic series that got me into reading101694 comics in the first places. I will certainly be continuing my reading of these books so that I can continue being apart of the Valerian and Laureline story. I also enjoyed the film and hope that the passion the Luc Besson showed will be enough to allow him to make another film in the series.
I would highly recommend this series!
The Valerian and Laureline comics follow Valerian, a handsome and cocky time and space traveler, and Laureline, his stubborn and beautiful partner. They travel together across space and time on missions for Galaxity, the capital of the Terran Empire in the 28th century. They explore strange worlds with fascinating creatures, deal with complicated political situations, and take the reader through rewritten history.
I immediately fell in love with the comics for the same reasons I enjoyed the film. The first is that the world that author Pierre Christin and artist Jean-Claude Mezieres created is truly fantastical. It falls under the same sci-fi mixed with fantasy genre that Star Wars is under. The great space galaxy is full of planets that are home to a wide range of alien species, each with complicated politics, cultures, and aesthetics.
The second reason is that I love the relationship between Valerian and Laureline. I am a very character driven person in both my reading and writing so I am a sucker for a good relationship, romantic, familial, or friendship. Valerian and Laureline start the first comic playing chess. Valerian is cocky and does not like to lose, but he is kind and smart and works hard to make the world a better place. Laureline is funny, stubborn, and unlike Valerian, she does not feel the same sense of loyalty to the Terran Empire and therefore is okay with bending the rules to save the most people. They make for a great team, and their fun banter adds to the overall charm of the story.
7810429The first issue of the series was released in 1967 and ran till 2010. Initially, all were written in French but has since been translated into English and several other languages. This series plays with a lot of the sci-fi/fantasy tropes that make you fall in love with stories in the genre, and has even been compared to Star Wars as the basis for several of the ideas used in the Star Wars films, such as the look of some of the characters and situations characters find themselves in.
This is a fun and exciting comic series that got me into reading101694 comics in the first places. I will certainly be continuing my reading of these books so that I can continue being apart of the Valerian and Laureline story. I also enjoyed the film and hope that the passion the Luc Besson showed will be enough to allow him to make another film in the series.
I would highly recommend this series!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Marvels (2022) in Movies
Nov 10, 2023
Fun. Lightweight Romp
If you, like many others, have opted out of the past few Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films and are, likewise, suffering from “SuperHero” fatigue but are now looking for a re-entry into the MCU, then THE MARVELS is the film for you, for unlike some previous MCU films, it does not take much in the way of previous knowledge to get into the flow of this (somewhat) lightweight, fun action comic-book flick.
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Academy Award winner Brie Larson returns as Captain Marvel and is joined (literally) with Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris - who’s SuperHero Origin story can be found in the DisneyPlus TV Series WANDAVISION, but is summed up pretty quickly here, so you’ll get the drift) as well as young MS. MARVEL (Iman Vellani, who’s origin story is told in the DisnePlus TV Series MS. MARVEL but who’s story is summed pretty quickly - and pretty well - here). They join forces to fight a villain, Dar-Benn (Zawe Ashton) intent on inflicting revenge/punishment on Captain Marvel. Also along for the ride is good ol’ Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury (in his 15th appearance in an MCU vehicle). They all bounce around the scenarios with a winking knowledge - and earnestness - about what kind of movie they are making…and with which what tone they need to hit.
In the hands of Director Nia DaCosta (the 2020 remake of CANDYMAN), THE MARVELS moves along at a brisk pace, injecting some humor and decent (enough) action sequences and CGI mixed in with a clever segment or 2 (one scene set to a classic Musical Theater song is worth the price of admission in and of itself). There is enough light, breezy sequences and banter that the main word that comes out of this film is “fun”. DaCosta succeeds, very well, with fun in this film. Where she doesn’t succeed as well is in emotional heft. Captain Marvel is given a few “self reflective” moments and while Larson is a terrific actor and tries to succeed with these moments, they didn’t feel earned, so they fell flat. Unfortunately, the other characters are there to battle and throw off one-liners…and not much more.
Wisely, DaCosta limits this film to 1 hours and 45 minutes - the shortest MCU film to date - and this is a positive for she just “gets to it” and doesn’t linger on any of the moments that don’t work or would fall apart if anyone had anytime to think about them.
And, of course, the “extra scenes” (an MCU staple) set up 2 new franchises, so you want to stick around for them (but you don’t need to stick around to the end of the credits).
All-in-all - Ms. Marvel is a fun, lightweight romp that will entertain for the time you are in the cineplex. But not much more. But…isn’t that what going to the movies is all about?
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Vaughn and Golding cross the pond to deliver more of the same.
You would probably need to be living under a rock not to know that “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is the follow-up film to Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman’s highly successful 2015 offering “Kingsman: The Secret Service”: a raucous, violent and rude entry into the spy-caper genre. And the sequel is more of the same: why mess with a crowd-pleasing formula?
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
The fledgling agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton (“Eddie the Eagle“), curiously called “Eggy” at various points in the film for reasons I didn’t understand) is now the new “Galahad” following the demise in the first film of the original, played by Colin Firth (“Magic in the Moonlight“, “Bridget Jones’ Baby“). But just as he’s getting into his stride the whole Kingsman organisation, now headed by Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as Arthur , is ripped apart by an evil drugs cartel called “The Golden Circle” headed by smiling but deadly Poppy (Juliane Moore, “Still Alice”).
Eggsy and Lancelot (Mark Strong, “Miss Sloane“) in desperation turn to Statesman – the US equivalent organisation – and together with some surprising allies set out to defeat the evil plot to poison all casual drug users.
Subtle this film certainly is not, featuring brash and absurdly unrealistic action scenes that are 90% CGI but – for me at least – enormous fun to watch. As with the first film (and I’m thinking of the grotesquely violent church scene here) the action moves however from ‘edgy’ to “over-the-top/offensive” at times. The ‘burger scene’ and (particularly) the ‘Glastonbury incident’ are the standout moments for all the wrong reasons. I have a theory about how these *might* have come about…
One Mann’s Movies Showcase Theatre
The scene: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Golding are working “The Golden Circle” script at Goldman’s English home.
Vaughn: “OK, so Eggsy is in the tent with Clara and needs to plant the tracking device on her.”
Goldman’s husband Jonathan Ross sticks his head round the door.
Ross: “Hey Guys, I’ve an idea about that. I was on the phone to Wussell Bwand and we came up with a GWEAT idea.”
Vaughn: (rolling his eyes, mutters to himself): “Oh God, not again…”
Ross: “We thought that Eggsy could use his finger to stick the tracker right up her – ahem – ‘lady canal’ and… and… here’s the really great bit… the camera’s gonna be his finger. A camera up the muff! It’ll be weally weally funny!”
Vaughn: “But Jonathan…”.
Goldman nudges him hard.
Goldman (whispering): “Just let it go Matthew… you know what he’s like if he doesn’t get at least a couple of his ideas into the film”.
You can only hope a stunt vagina was used for this scene, else Poppy Delavigne (older sister of Cara) is going to find it very hard to find credible future work. One can only guess what tasteful interlude is being planned for Kingsman 3 – – a prostate-based tracker perhaps?
The film works best when the core team of Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth (yes, Colin Firth!) are together. Jeff Bridges (“Hell or High Water“), Channing Tatum (“Foxcatcher“) and Halle Berry (“Monster’s Ball”) all turn up as key members of ‘Statesman’ – adding star power but not a lot else – together with Pedro Pascal (“The Great Wall“) as ‘Whiskey’…. who I expected to be someone equally famous behind the moustache but wasn’t!
There’s also a very entertaining cameo from a star (no spoilers from me) whose foul-mouthed tirades I found very funny, and who also has the funniest line in the film (playing off one of the most controversial elements of the first film). It’s fair to say though that others I’ve spoken to didn’t think this appearance fitted the film at all.
Julianne Moore makes for an entertaining – if less than credible – villain, as does Bruce Greenwood (“Star Trek: Into Darkness”) as a barely disguised Trump. None of the motivations of the bad ‘uns however support any scrutiny whatsoever: this is very much a “park your brain at the door” film.
I really shouldn’t enjoy this crass, brash, brainless movie fast-food… and I know many have hated it! But my guilty secret is that I really did like it – one of the best nights of unadulterated escapist fun I’ve had since “Baby Driver”. Classy it’s certainly NOT, but I enjoyed this just as much as the original.
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Animals (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: American Animals starts as we see the heist about to take place, rewinding us 18 months where we meet Spencer Reinhardt (Keoghan) an art student in Transylvania University, struggling with his identity, turning to his streetwise friend Warren Lipka (Peters) the two discuss the potential of stealing rare expensive books from the library.
As the idea turns into a plan they bring in Chas Allen (Jenner) and Eric Borsuk (Abrahamson), can they make this plan come off, well the answer is no because as we see the planning we meet the real thieves now in their 30s discussing what they remember about the idea.
Thoughts on American Animals
Characters – Warren is the streetwise student on a scholarship, not living up to his potential, he will always get things down however illegal they might be. He is the one that brings the team together to make this happen even if he is also the one that gets them in the most problems. Spencer is the art student that comes up with the idea because he is sick of not standing out in the art world, looking for the pain be believes artist require. He is all in with the planning but when it comes to following through he thinks they will need to go too far. Chas is the getaway driver, he has the most money which helps with the planning of the heist. Eric becomes the brains learning where things could and would go wrong if they do it in certain directions. We do also meet the adult versions of these characters in the real version that are looking back on the crime they committed.
Performances – Evan Peters is the clear highlight in this film, he always comes off unpredictable which seeing the older versions of the characters you completely understand too. Barry Keoghan does play the stranger member of the crew well, he is the one that is happy to plan not commit a crime, he needs to be straighter faced than Peters character. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here is based on the real story of four university students that robbed the rare book collection in the library of their university. The way the story is told is interesting because it does both help and hinder the film, having a mix of the actors playing the younger versions and the real men talking about the events does give the story a documentary feel. Where this does hinder the story is by telling us that they failed early on and are now just remembering what happen which takes away any excitement or edge of your set moments towards anything going on. There are moments in the story which are good to watch, for example the scene where they are watching heist movies to learn how to pull it off and seeing the pitch perfect plan in Warren’s head. If we are being honest, the story is about 20 minutes too long because the opening hour just drags you along, once the heist gets underway things get more exciting but by then you might see the audience lose interest.
Crime – The crime follows a real heist that happened at the same university, we get to see how it was planned, how things went down and seeing the consequences the boys felt.
Settings – The film is mostly set in and around the university, this helps for any heist film, we do get moments where we step away, but that is for the plan which does work when you see how the boys are out of their depth at times.
Scene of the Movie – Selecting the names.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The first hour.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly long heist movie that drags along at a horribly slow pace, once things kick off we do get some interest, but the fact we have the real criminals involved in telling the story we know the outcome.
Overall: Just watch for Evan Peters being slightly crazy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/08/28/american-animals-2018/
As the idea turns into a plan they bring in Chas Allen (Jenner) and Eric Borsuk (Abrahamson), can they make this plan come off, well the answer is no because as we see the planning we meet the real thieves now in their 30s discussing what they remember about the idea.
Thoughts on American Animals
Characters – Warren is the streetwise student on a scholarship, not living up to his potential, he will always get things down however illegal they might be. He is the one that brings the team together to make this happen even if he is also the one that gets them in the most problems. Spencer is the art student that comes up with the idea because he is sick of not standing out in the art world, looking for the pain be believes artist require. He is all in with the planning but when it comes to following through he thinks they will need to go too far. Chas is the getaway driver, he has the most money which helps with the planning of the heist. Eric becomes the brains learning where things could and would go wrong if they do it in certain directions. We do also meet the adult versions of these characters in the real version that are looking back on the crime they committed.
Performances – Evan Peters is the clear highlight in this film, he always comes off unpredictable which seeing the older versions of the characters you completely understand too. Barry Keoghan does play the stranger member of the crew well, he is the one that is happy to plan not commit a crime, he needs to be straighter faced than Peters character. When it comes to the rest of the cast they are fine without needing to do that much.
Story – The story here is based on the real story of four university students that robbed the rare book collection in the library of their university. The way the story is told is interesting because it does both help and hinder the film, having a mix of the actors playing the younger versions and the real men talking about the events does give the story a documentary feel. Where this does hinder the story is by telling us that they failed early on and are now just remembering what happen which takes away any excitement or edge of your set moments towards anything going on. There are moments in the story which are good to watch, for example the scene where they are watching heist movies to learn how to pull it off and seeing the pitch perfect plan in Warren’s head. If we are being honest, the story is about 20 minutes too long because the opening hour just drags you along, once the heist gets underway things get more exciting but by then you might see the audience lose interest.
Crime – The crime follows a real heist that happened at the same university, we get to see how it was planned, how things went down and seeing the consequences the boys felt.
Settings – The film is mostly set in and around the university, this helps for any heist film, we do get moments where we step away, but that is for the plan which does work when you see how the boys are out of their depth at times.
Scene of the Movie – Selecting the names.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The first hour.
Final Thoughts – This is an overly long heist movie that drags along at a horribly slow pace, once things kick off we do get some interest, but the fact we have the real criminals involved in telling the story we know the outcome.
Overall: Just watch for Evan Peters being slightly crazy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/08/28/american-animals-2018/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 17, 2018
Entertaining film - but the book was better
I loved the book.
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
When that phrase is uttered, it doesn't necessarily mean that the film has a strike going against it. For every film that "the book was better" (MISS PEREGRINE and THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN, for instance), I can also point to films where they "did justice to the book" (like THE MARTIAN and the recent version of IT).
So...it was with some trepidation - and some excitement - that I checked into the virtual world of the Oasis and caught READY PLAYER ONE. Most of my excitement was because I was going see this Steven Spielberg opus on the big screen in 70mm. I was ready for an immersive, stunningly visual film experience.
And...I wasn't disappointed.
Set in a not-too-distant-future, dystopian world (is there any other?), READY PLAYER ONE is part WILLIE WONKA and part THE MATRIX. A brilliant game designer has died and has littered his virtual world - a world where most of the people on planet Earth go to escape the poverty and depravity of the "real world" - with clues and an "Easter Egg" (literally). The first one to find the hidden Easter Egg gains ownership of the Oasis. 5 years later, no one has found anything and it has turned into a battle between the evil Corporate conglomerate IOI that wants to commercialize the Oasis and the "gunters" (Grail hunters) that want to keep the Oasis "pure".
So, into this world, Spielberg brings us - and succeeds for the most part. The most stunning part of this film - and the reason I wanted to see this on the big screen and in 70mm - is that 80% of it takes place in the Oasis, the virtual reality world. The scenery, imagery and detail of this world are a marvel to behold. Since it is a virtual world, you can throw away the laws of physics - and that is a fun aspect of things (especially when you forget that your are in a virtual, and not a real, world).
The real fun of this story (both in the book and in the movie) is that most of the Oasis is filled with homages to 1980's Pop Culture (with some 60's, 70's and 90's thrown in), so you are treated to many fun "cameo" images on the screen (like the DeLorean from BACK TO THE FUTURE) - even if they are in the background. I won't give much away, but in one scene I spotted the "open the pod bay doors, HAL" pod from 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, just hanging out in the background without anyone referring to it. If you are any kind of pop culture "nerd" you will be in hog heaven with this aspect of the movie.
And that's a good thing because we spend, as I said, 80% of our time in this film in this virtual world - and it is well worth the trip. The other 20% is spent in the "real world" and the visuals, the imagery and, sadly, the characters are just not as exciting or interesting.
Take, for example, our 5 heroes - the "High Five" gunters. In the Oasis, their avatars are interesting to look at and to spend time with. Outside of the Oasis, the 5 actors who inhabit these characters are - to be honest - somewhat boring and lacking in screen presence and charisma.
I blame most of the lack of charisma on Spielberg, who - obviously - spent most of his attention (rightfully so) on the special effects and creating the world of the Oasis. He left the actors to "do their thing" and these 5 kids (or maybe I should say "young adults") just don't have the chops to pull it off. Someone who does - Ben Mendehlson as the Corporation's head and the main villain of this piece - eats scenery like it is snack chips. The only thing he didn't do in this film is twirl his mustache and tie the female lead to the train tracks. Add to that performance the usually obnoxious TJ Miller, as the main henchman who is up to his usual, obnoxious self here. I could have used a lot less of both of these characters.
What I could have used a lot more of is the brilliant Mark Rylance - superbly underplaying his role as the game's chief designer, who pops up in virtual flashbacks and commands the screen whenever he is on. His partner is played by the usually reliable Simon Pegg, who was "fine", but - if I'm being honest - I think is miscast in this film.
Is it a good film? I'd have to say yes - I enjoyed myself very much - and you will too. I did, though, walk out thinking about what a missed opportunity it was. The film could have been better.
The book, certainly, was better.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)