Search
Search results
Trainline Europe
Travel and Shopping
9.0
Rate It
App
Trainline is the quickest and easiest solution for booking train tickets online in Europe. Since...
Checkbook Ledger Free - Reconcile and balance your checkbook register
Finance and Business
App
Checkbook ledger is smart and simple to use iPhone App for managing money in your multiple Accounts...
WhoSampled
Music and Entertainment
App
Discover the DNA of the music in your collection! Scan your personal Apple Music, Spotify or iTunes...
Foodie Recipe Manager
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
App
Foodie Recipe Manager is the simple and powerful way to manage, share, use and sync all your...
Tell Me More: Stories about the 12 Hardest Things I'm Learning to Say
Book
A warm, insightful look at the twelve phrases that strengthen and sustain our relationships, from...
women mind and body
iSurfer - Surfing Coach
Sports and Lifestyle
App
"THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE SURFING APP AVAILABLE" iSurfer is more than just an app for surfers, it is...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
14,000,605:1 …. or perhaps 50:50!
So, it’s been a week of full-on work and family commitments…. which means it’s also been a week of ducking and dodging of film reviews in case of spoilers! (Actually, all my favourite bloggers have been pretty good!). This review will also be spoiler free,but there is just SO MUCH that can be discussed there will be a Spoiley McSpoiler section after the trailer video.
Upfront I have to admit that I’m not the world’s greatest MCU fan, but even I felt a twinge of anticipation on going into this 19th instalment: a film that has had fan-boys frothing at the loins for years. And the film doesn’t disappoint, drawing together most (but not all) threads of the disparate MCU universe into a sprawling epic adventure.
Thanos (which inappropriately always seems to autocorrect to “Thanks”!) is played by a CGI’d Josh Brolin, first glimpsed as a “monkey” after the original “Avengers” movie where his quest for the “infinity stones” was first mooted. This particular McGuffin has been revealed in parts throughout the series, with others being surreptitiously slipped into this instalment. With all six stones, Thanos will be able to fully exercise his God fixation over the Universe. Will the Avengers and their new Guardian friends (“Who the hell are you guys?” LOL) be able to stop him?
There are shocks and surprises aplenty. Most of these come courtesy of Thanos who, although like all megalomaniac Bond villains is as mad as a box of frogs, has a backstory and a depth of character that is several cuts above most movie villains.
All of the cast seem to have great fun bouncing off each other. The only performance I found out of kilter was Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner who (to me) seemed to be really off his game and false, at least for the early scenes in the movie.
The special effects are – naturally – top-notch and are clever in trying to smooth the joins between the ‘traditional’ view of the Avengers world and the garish world of the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.
Cinema staff must hate a Marvel movie as they have to wait til the very end of the credits before they can move in to clean! And there is a “monkey” (and a good one) at the very end of the credits here, but the credits are very, very long!
So, in summary, it’s complete nonsense as normal, but it’s high-class nonsense, well-written, suitably humorous and provides excellent popcorn entertainment. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo are to be congratulated in pulling off what could have been a disaster. Recommended.
Upfront I have to admit that I’m not the world’s greatest MCU fan, but even I felt a twinge of anticipation on going into this 19th instalment: a film that has had fan-boys frothing at the loins for years. And the film doesn’t disappoint, drawing together most (but not all) threads of the disparate MCU universe into a sprawling epic adventure.
Thanos (which inappropriately always seems to autocorrect to “Thanks”!) is played by a CGI’d Josh Brolin, first glimpsed as a “monkey” after the original “Avengers” movie where his quest for the “infinity stones” was first mooted. This particular McGuffin has been revealed in parts throughout the series, with others being surreptitiously slipped into this instalment. With all six stones, Thanos will be able to fully exercise his God fixation over the Universe. Will the Avengers and their new Guardian friends (“Who the hell are you guys?” LOL) be able to stop him?
There are shocks and surprises aplenty. Most of these come courtesy of Thanos who, although like all megalomaniac Bond villains is as mad as a box of frogs, has a backstory and a depth of character that is several cuts above most movie villains.
All of the cast seem to have great fun bouncing off each other. The only performance I found out of kilter was Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner who (to me) seemed to be really off his game and false, at least for the early scenes in the movie.
The special effects are – naturally – top-notch and are clever in trying to smooth the joins between the ‘traditional’ view of the Avengers world and the garish world of the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.
Cinema staff must hate a Marvel movie as they have to wait til the very end of the credits before they can move in to clean! And there is a “monkey” (and a good one) at the very end of the credits here, but the credits are very, very long!
So, in summary, it’s complete nonsense as normal, but it’s high-class nonsense, well-written, suitably humorous and provides excellent popcorn entertainment. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo are to be congratulated in pulling off what could have been a disaster. Recommended.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Apr 5, 2022
The latest Marvel offering is Morbius. Michael Morbius (Jared Leto) grew up in Greece under the care of Dr.Emil Nikols (Jared Harris). In this universe, Emil is Michael’s Mentor. This story takes
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
bits from the comic book but it clearly isn’t canon. It is an adequate anti-hero origin story for Phase 4 which gives us the backstory of Morbius’ creation.
Morbius has a rare blood disease. As a child, he made his best friend Milo/Lucien (Matt Smith), a promise to find the cure for their shared illness. Michael, in his quest for the cure, became the youngest scientist to win the Nobel Prize from his development of artificial blood.
He works with fellow scientist Martine Bancroft (Adria Arjona) who becomes his love interest.
Morbius has been working on vampire bats and the abilities within their blood. Once the formula has stabilized, he begins human trials on himself. In doing so, the serum that he has developed transforms him into a vampire that needs human blood to sustain his existence.
The film seems to have dropped the trail to lead the audience to logical conclusions. There are questions that need to be answered which would help flesh out the actions of the characters.
Why the serum, if the reason is to create a cure, why did the bat and human combination mutate instead of the blood changing?
There are points throughout the film that feel like critical explanatory lines were edited out.
Some scenes had witty banter between Michael and Milo. It would have been good to see Morbius enjoy his transformation from his weak, ill state to the Vampire.
The film was good. It definitely could have been better with more information. I wanted to understand motivation by the actors indicating motive or have red herrings thrown through the film.
The best parts for me were the moments where he stumbled upon his new abilities. He observes them like the scientist he is and takes it as data, in order to understand the changes.
The CGI was muddy, in trying to show movement as quick. What it looked like was trying to
convey speed, but in doing so, ended up having what showed up as squiggly lines instead.
I liked it, but didn’t love it mainly for what it seemed to lack, continuity. I think for an origin film, the character needs to be brought out as clean as possible in order to develop solid character traits.
If you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that you go see the movie, there are two end credit scenes. There are a couple situations that lead into the Multiverse of Magic. I am definitely looking forward to that film.
3 stars out of 5
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spellbound (1945) in Movies
Jun 13, 2022
Not the First Hitchcock You Should Watch
When Dr. Anthony Edwardes arrives at a mental hospital in Vermont to replace existing hospital director, Dr. Constance Peterson quickly recognizes him as an impostor. The impostor not only comes clean but also fears he may have killed the real Edwards. It is up to the impostor and Constance to find out the truth of what really happened.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.
Acting: 10
Gregory Peck is one of the shining actors of the 1940’s and his performance as the impostor doesn’t disappoint. His ability to draw in emotion always manages to root my attention into a scene. Ingrid Bergman was also sensational as Dr. Peterson. The chemistry between the two actors carried the majority of the scenes.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
The characters give you just enough throughout the story to move things along. While I did hold out hope that some of the characters would be fleshed out slightly better, I didn’t mind working with what the story gave me. I can’t give away too much without fear of spoilers, but i will say that some of the backstories took an interesting turn.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Another man that doesn’t disappoint when it comes to cinematography: Alfred Hitchcock. Mans is in his bag with some really creative shots that probably surprised a 1945 audience. From dream sequences to flashbacks, Hitchcocks devotion to his craft is on full display. Definitely a strong suit of this film.
Conflict: 4
Entertainment Value: 7
At one point in my notes I wrote, “The premise is great. I think it’s the execution that is a little off.” You can see glimpses of where Spellbound wanted to take off, but it’s usually shortlived. I hung in there for the creativity of the premise, but that can only get you so far. Too many lulls and letdowns spoiled the overall experience.
Memorability: 4
Pace: 2
The talking. All the damn talking all the time. Good…Lord. The film is STUFFED with dialogue, 111 minutes of talka-talka-talka. The lack of action begins in the first twenty minutes and becomes and ongoing theme, unfortunately. “Show don’t tell” did not apply here.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Despite my disappointment with how slowly things moved, the film was wrapped up nicely. It actually made me even more upset with the movie as a whole because the ending was great potential for what ALL of Spellbound should have been. This film could have done a ton of things better. The ending, though? Solid.
Overall: 69
Not my favorite Hitchcock, Spellbound misses the mark in a number of different departments. I don’t know, it left a bad taste in my mouth and left me unfulfilled. If you’re looking to work through Hitchcock’s filmography, maybe save this one for later on down the road.