Search
Search results
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)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"i'm just a kid from brooklyn"
"I'm just a kid from Brooklyn"
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
A rip-roaring homage to old fashioned serials and comic books. Joe Johnston somehow pulls off the tone and look, firmly planting me into the 1940's time period. As fantastical as it is I still feel the real world within the picture.
Protagonist Steve Rogers makes for an easily likable guy who at the start is a smaller guy, who stands up to bullies even if it means getting his ass beat. His dream is to serve his country and although not meeting physical requirements for the army, he proves the heart and courage to become the specimen of a super soldier syrum. With this experiment, Steve's size, strength and conditioning is greatly enhanced and becomes the face of WW2 propaganda. His desire to fight however gets him involved with the battle against a division of the Nazi's known as Hydra, headed by Johann Schmidt, the "Red Skull".
Red Skull is one of the best villians of the Marvel cinematic universe. I couldn't imagine him played by anyone other than Hugo Weaving who brings such gravitas and personality to the role. Red Skull is an experiment of the soldier syrum himself which gives him a certain connection to Rogers, but chooses to use his power for the service of himself and his evil desires. The film includes the element of Nazi fascination with science and experimentation, taking it a step further. Red Skull discovers other worldly magic, the Tesseract of Asgard, which he utilizes for the use of weaponry. Thus, blending historical events with an exciting dose of imagination. A Nazi more powerful than Hitler? That's pretty scary.
The action comes swift and mighty, combining the fleshy violence of war with creative comic book thrills. It's some of the most entertaining action I've ever seen. I love that the presence of Hitler can be felt even though he is not on screen. It seamlessly connects the future with the past, makes the looming threat of the entire world felt, and contains elements of other Marvel films past and present that only adds to the movie and never detracts. Tony Stark's father has a direct influence on Captain America which adds a layer to the proceeding films. Thor and Loki's place in future events are tied in perfectly. Steve's friendship with Bucky and presumed death is one of the emotional cores to the film that also plays into the sequels. Unbelievable.
Can I just mention the charming romance between Peggy and Steve Rogers? It's so natural and plays out over the duration of the film without anything ridiculous. When Peggy tears up as Steve is speeding toward the unkown in a downed plane, I lose it. I lose it every time. They never got that last dance and my heart is broken.
When Red Skull calls Steve a "simpleton with a shield" I'm like YES!! that's why I love him. I could be Steve Rogers. I could be Captain America. Well, not really, but he's one of the most relatable on screen super heroes. I'd even say he's the one I can see myself in the most. Consider me #TeamCap.
I must make mention of the wonderful musical score and songs written for the film. Very important piece to the puzzle. I listen to "Star Spangled Man" just about every time I take a walk. The costumes and production design deserve all the love in the world as well. Tommy Lee Jones is great and makes me laugh as usual. All performances are great. Points for finding a use for Captain America's vintage comic book costume and re-enacting the punch to Hitler's face from Captain America issue #1.
Who taught Cap how to fight like that though? Guess that's one of the perks of the syrum too.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 3 Lives (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: 3 Lives starts when a therapist Emma (Calvey) gets kidnapped after years of being on the run, left trapped with Jamie (Kaps) and Ben (Ricketts) a man that went to prison for her first kidnapping, despite being considered the rescuer. The three escape, with three men Thoms (Taubman), Piggy (Alfieri) and Frotti (Riley) chasing them down.
With Emma, Jamie and Ben trying to figure out why they are kidnapped, Emma starts looking back on her previous experience, hoping to uncover more about why Ben acted the way she believes he did, as he seems to be the only one guiding them to safety.
Thoughts on 3 Lives
Characters – Emma is a therapist that has been helping victims of violent crimes, she knows what it is like to have been a victim after previously being kidnapped and raped, she finds herself getting kidnapped once again and left wondering if the right person took the blame for the crime against her. Jamie is a man that has been kidnapped too, he believes that Ben was innocent and doesn’t want Emma to trust him while they plan to escape, he doesn’t seem to have any experience of the woods though. Ben is the man who claimed to be the rescuer of Emma before, only to take the blame for the crime, he sees this as a chance to redeem himself for what she believes he might have done, he knows how the survive in the conditions and is always thinking about survival. Thoms is leading the men hunting them down, with his training to make him a brilliant tracker through the woods.
Performances – Mhairi Calvey in the leading role is strong though the film, she does make us believe that her character has been a victim, while showing the strength to face the man that did this too her. Tyron Ricketts give us a strong supporting performance as a man who remains stronger than the broken version of himself could be. Martin Kaps brings us the annoying figure trapped in the woods, he does the I’m the nice guy routine with ease, while also bring us the ‘you’re an idiot’ side to his character.
Story – The story here follows a woman that finds herself kidnapped again, going face to face with the man who went to prison for raping her years ago, now they are joined by another man from their past as they look to escape hunters in the woods looking to eliminate them. The story does tackle the serious affects of sexual assault, how the victim’s life will never be the same, we see how they can confront the person and still remain unsure of the real events of what happened because of the trauma involved such an act. The survival aspect of the story doesn’t reach the levels of peril it could do, while the constant back and forth that goes on trying to point figures between Emma, Ben and Jamie gets confusing because most of it is wondering why they have been selected. The story is saved by the final act which will put the pieces together and make sense of everything we have seen beforehand.
Thriller – The film never reaches the full level of the intensity that it could, with the being hunted side of the story being the weaker and never putting the characters in a level of peril which does feel believable.
Settings – The victims find themselves in the middle of the woods with nowhere to run that makes sense to them, it makes them feel lost and looking for answers to why they are there, creating isolation from their real world.
Scene of the Movie – Final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The hunters never feel like they are dangerous.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong drama with thriller on its arm, it tackles a real life problem of sexual abuse in a new way that will get a chance to see just how difficult it can be for a victim to speak up or even remember the full events of what happened to them.
Overall: Thriller with deeper meaning.
With Emma, Jamie and Ben trying to figure out why they are kidnapped, Emma starts looking back on her previous experience, hoping to uncover more about why Ben acted the way she believes he did, as he seems to be the only one guiding them to safety.
Thoughts on 3 Lives
Characters – Emma is a therapist that has been helping victims of violent crimes, she knows what it is like to have been a victim after previously being kidnapped and raped, she finds herself getting kidnapped once again and left wondering if the right person took the blame for the crime against her. Jamie is a man that has been kidnapped too, he believes that Ben was innocent and doesn’t want Emma to trust him while they plan to escape, he doesn’t seem to have any experience of the woods though. Ben is the man who claimed to be the rescuer of Emma before, only to take the blame for the crime, he sees this as a chance to redeem himself for what she believes he might have done, he knows how the survive in the conditions and is always thinking about survival. Thoms is leading the men hunting them down, with his training to make him a brilliant tracker through the woods.
Performances – Mhairi Calvey in the leading role is strong though the film, she does make us believe that her character has been a victim, while showing the strength to face the man that did this too her. Tyron Ricketts give us a strong supporting performance as a man who remains stronger than the broken version of himself could be. Martin Kaps brings us the annoying figure trapped in the woods, he does the I’m the nice guy routine with ease, while also bring us the ‘you’re an idiot’ side to his character.
Story – The story here follows a woman that finds herself kidnapped again, going face to face with the man who went to prison for raping her years ago, now they are joined by another man from their past as they look to escape hunters in the woods looking to eliminate them. The story does tackle the serious affects of sexual assault, how the victim’s life will never be the same, we see how they can confront the person and still remain unsure of the real events of what happened because of the trauma involved such an act. The survival aspect of the story doesn’t reach the levels of peril it could do, while the constant back and forth that goes on trying to point figures between Emma, Ben and Jamie gets confusing because most of it is wondering why they have been selected. The story is saved by the final act which will put the pieces together and make sense of everything we have seen beforehand.
Thriller – The film never reaches the full level of the intensity that it could, with the being hunted side of the story being the weaker and never putting the characters in a level of peril which does feel believable.
Settings – The victims find themselves in the middle of the woods with nowhere to run that makes sense to them, it makes them feel lost and looking for answers to why they are there, creating isolation from their real world.
Scene of the Movie – Final act.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The hunters never feel like they are dangerous.
Final Thoughts – This is a strong drama with thriller on its arm, it tackles a real life problem of sexual abuse in a new way that will get a chance to see just how difficult it can be for a victim to speak up or even remember the full events of what happened to them.
Overall: Thriller with deeper meaning.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Onward (2020) in Movies
Mar 15, 2020
I had very mixed feelings about Onward after seeing the trailer, it didn't feel like Pixar and if you'd shown it to me out of context I'd never have guessed it was them.
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
It's Ian's 16th birthday and things aren't exactly going to plan. To cheer him up his mum gives him and his brother a present left for them by their late father. In a world that has forgotten magic, their father had still believed, and he's leaving them a way that will allow them to see him again. When the only way to complete the spell means finding something long forgotten the brothers must embark on a quest, one that older brother Barley has been preparing for his whole life.
Onward starts with a great potted history of magic in their world and how it's been replaced by modern amenities. It feels like they made a very quick change but I liked it over the sped-up timeline over many years, it actually summed up a more modern way of abandoning things that aren't convenient. It also allows you to have fun little moments of thinking about how things changed when you see flashes of their past during the film.
With Pixar you know that you're going to get that sentiment and deeper meaning that induces bucketloads of tears and in Onward it's a strong message about family and how the past weighs down on what's actually happening in the present. None of that meaning really feels like it's there until very late in the film though, the beginning is more like some generic off-brand fantasy adventure, and though the two ends fit together they don't seem like they belong together.
The mix of characters is fun but we don't get a proper introduction to who, or what, many of them are. It's a shame that with such a varied selection of creatures that most are just relegated to being quirky looking with no real function. There were at least things to appreciate from some of them, Colt counting I thought was a fun touch, and I loved Corey the Manticore, her whole transition through the film was funny and very entertaining.
Chris Pratt as Barley was the only spot on bit of casting for me, his happy-go-lucky demeanour fits the character and we're treated to some of that Starlord adventure. (My favourite Barley scene was definitely the bridge). Everyone else kind of felt a little... meh? I wasn't wowed, I wasn't hooked in trying to work out who the voices were, it all felt a little bland. Partly I think that's because I never felt like I learned anything about them. Sure, some bits were fun, but through most of the film I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of them.
The journey that brothers Ian and Barley go on is full of twists and turns, they're amusing but nothing we haven't really seen before. As I mentioned, the emotional payoff doesn't appear until very late, and it did reduce me to tears, but it could have been so much more. The build-up to it had no real substance, especially when you consider how meaningful it's conclusion is.
In fact, the build-up could have offered up so many different things. For a fantasy story with magic and mythical creatures it holds little to no magical feeling. There's no real spectacle or pizzazz to anything. When I think of magic in other films I get wonder and joy, but in Onward it's done more for jokes. Even at the climax of the film it takes on so much humour that it detracts from the emotions.
Dan Scalon's story is partly based on his own experiences (I'm assuming with less mythical creature though)... and that story is peak Pixar... but the world created around it isn't strong enough for the sentiment it portrays. Taking such a powerful message about family and bundling it up in something that doesn't have the usual Pixar strength and heart feels like a travesty to me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/onward-movie-review.html
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Martyrs (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
As a young girl, Lucie was able to escape certain death as she was held captive and tortured onto the brink of death. Now, fifteen years later, she seeks revenge on those who hurt her emotionally, physically, and mentally. The only person she's ever been close to is, her friend, Anna. As Lucie leaves a path of destruction and mayhem on her quest for revenge, Anna is dragged along to help pick up the pieces. In an odd twist, Lucie is haunted by a woman whose sole purpose is to hurt her, but only shows up after Lucie unleashes all of her built up pain and anger. Anna begins to question Lucie's sanity as things take a turn for the worst. That is until Anna discovers the chained up woman in the basement...
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.
Martyrs wasn't really what I was expecting at all. I was expecting something along the lines of Haute Tension and À l'intérieur since it's classified as a French horror film. I was left with something completely different as Martyrs tends to be on a level all on its own. It is extremely brutal. I've heard it is more along the lines of Irréversible, but since I haven't seen that I can't really elaborate on it. It left with me with the same feeling The Girl Next Door did. This uneasiness that made me question sitting through the movie again anytime soon. Yet, at the same time, not many horror films are capable of making me feel this way. So I'm not really sure if I should view this as a flaw or a virtue. It also reminded me of Hostel, at times, especially the closing act of the film. Before people grown or anything, let me explain. It reminds me of Hostel if it was done correctly and focused on young girls the entire time. For me, Hostel had an excellent idea but was executed the wrong way. Martyrs pretty much brought what I had in mind for that film to life and did it better. Martyrs is definitely its own film, but its influences and/or homages seem to stick out like a sore thumb to someone who watches a lot of films and/or reviews them.
On first viewing, I can't really say if I liked why this was being done to these girls. It is explained and as it makes sense on one hand, it seems a bit farfetched on the other. It may grow on me during repeat viewings, but it didn't really sit well with me this particular time. The brutality in the film isn't always what is shown on screen either. There's a scene where this bulky guy is beating the snot out of this girl; just punching her in the face repeatedly as hard as he can. You can't really see the damage he's doing to her, but you can hear it and you can tell he's giving her quite a beating. During one of the more gruesome parts, the sound almost completely fades away and the shot relies completely on the girl's facial expressions as you see her begin to shake. As disturbing as it was, it was interesting seeing anguish portrayed a bit differently as the film went on.
Martyrs definitely delivers in more than one department. Those who are looking for another sick, twisted, and brutal French horror film won't be disappointed and let's just say the film lives up to the meaning of its title. Be advised that this is on the same brutality level as High Tension and there are plenty of scenes to cringe to and scream at in this film.