Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Delivers What Is Expected
Like eating comfort food on a cold, wintery day, sitting down to catch the latest Scorsese/DeNiro mob movie filled me with a warmth that was satisfying for it's familiarity. It is a film landscape mined by professionals who know this genre of movie well.
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
There is a terrific film in this 3 1/2 hour epic - if only "Marty" would have trimmed the fat to find it.
Telling the real-life story (with some conjecture and fabrications), THE IRISHMAN tells the tale of...well...Irishman Frank Sheeran (Robert DeNiro) a working stiff who rises in the ranks of mobster Russell Buffalino (Joe Pesci) to be one of his chief enforcers and the personal bodyguard to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Paciino).
In the lead, DeNiro commands the screen like the DeNiro of old. His Frank Sheeran is menacing, razor-focused on his objectives. You never question Frank's loyalties and his ability to keep silent. DeNiro shows this by be being silent for a good part of this film, even though he is on screen for most of it. He is a commanding force that requires that we pay attention to him.
It was good to see Pesci back onscreen as Russell Buffalino. His mob boss is pragmatic, making decisions sternly and expecting his people to follow them, no questions asked. His presence on the screen is almost as commanding as DeNiro's and I wouldn't be surprised to see DeNiro (Best Actor) and Pesci (Best Supporting Actor) be in the mix come Oscar time.
In lesser, (almost cameo), roles - but faring very well - is a "who's who" of character actors, Harvey Keitel (who I would have LOVED to have seen much, much more in this film), Ray Romano, Bobby Canavale, Jesse Pleimens and Anna Paquin, I'm sure all jumped at the chance to appear - however briefly - in a Scorsese mob epic.
Faring less well in this film is Al Pacio as Jimmy Hoffa. He is back to his "yelling Al Pacino" ways of films like SCENT OF A WOMAN. His Hoffa is pretty one note and, consequently, his scenes with DeNiro are ineffective mostly because Pacino is chewing up the scenery (and yelling) while DeNiro is sitting silent and staring and listening to Pacino. This was a major disappointment for me, but (fortunately), Hoffa is in only about 1/3 of this long film, so while it hampered my enjoyment of the film, it didn't ruin it.
Credit (and blame) for all of this goes to master Director Martin Scorsese who has mined these waters more successfully in CASINO, THE DEPARTED and GOODFELLAS (his best film, IMO). This film is a loving pastiche to these types of films and a bygone era - and he chose to make it for NETFLIX for he wanted to make a sprawling epic and take his time in telling the story he wanted to tell. This is evidenced in the 3 1/2 hour length of this film, which if filled with long tracking shots set to a backdrop of Italian crooners singing old standards. It's a throwback to a different time and place, one that these players know well.
Scorsese has stated the he only decided to make this film because the "de-aging" software the he used to make DeNiro and Pesci look 30 years younger was "good enough" to use. And I would agree with that statement. The de-aging of these 2 (and others) is "good enough", in some scenes I forgot I was watching a de-aged DeNiro and Pesci, while in some other scenes, I could spot the trick. Again, it was "good enough" and not distracting (unless you were looking to make it distracting, then you probably found what you were looking for).
But for me - a fan of these types of films, I was not disappointed. It was about what I expected it to be. If you were looking for something different and new, look elsewhere, you will be disappointed.
Letter Grade: B+
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Ross (3284 KP) rated Redemption's Blade: After the War in Books
Jun 15, 2018
Storyline is not engaging (2 more)
Reading the aftermath of events that you have no knowledge of
I'm still not 100% sure there wasn't an earlier book I'm meant to have read
A sequel to a book not written yet (that sounds more interesting)
*Disclosure - I received an advance copy of this book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review*
Over the last few months I have been lucky to read three new Tchaikovsky books. As this was the first fantasy book of those three (the other two being war sci-fi) I had fingers crossed for a return to the heights of the Shadows of the Apt series. I was sadly disappointed.
The scope of this book is truly epic in every sense. The world we are thrown into has a diverse range of beings, species, cities, religions and beliefs and a rich history. The events follow on from the end of a tyrannical reign of the Kinslayer, a power-mad demi-god who tried to break the spirit of those races he didn't just wipe out. We see the Kinslayer-slayer Celestaine's attempts to do good in the aftermath of this war, and try to make one species whole again. This aim leads her on a journey across the world where we are introduced to a range of new peoples and places. The journey goes on from place to place, the company increasing all the while.
I have real respect for Tchaikovsky trying to do something new - tell the story that follows on from a somewhat typical fantasy tale. Sadly for me, the story that went before sounds so much more interesting and engaging - the besting of a truly despicable being. This story is instead something of an empty, largely pointless journey. The ending leads us to believe someone had been luring people with the promise of magical items, to come to him and ultimately their doom - however, the trail leading to him was not exactly clear and the chances of anyone following it would be minimal (let alone someone following it at exactly the right pace to witness certain key events!). The world-building is epic and yet completely forgettable. I found myself forgetting who people were, why they were doing things and I completely missed one major reveal in the final chapters, only to re-read and find that there pretty much was no reveal.
I am a fan of Tchaikovsky's writing style but for me this book was a struggle to get through. I had no feelings towards any of the characters and couldn't remember or care where they had been or why, or what had happened. Not a worthwhile investment of my time.
Over the last few months I have been lucky to read three new Tchaikovsky books. As this was the first fantasy book of those three (the other two being war sci-fi) I had fingers crossed for a return to the heights of the Shadows of the Apt series. I was sadly disappointed.
The scope of this book is truly epic in every sense. The world we are thrown into has a diverse range of beings, species, cities, religions and beliefs and a rich history. The events follow on from the end of a tyrannical reign of the Kinslayer, a power-mad demi-god who tried to break the spirit of those races he didn't just wipe out. We see the Kinslayer-slayer Celestaine's attempts to do good in the aftermath of this war, and try to make one species whole again. This aim leads her on a journey across the world where we are introduced to a range of new peoples and places. The journey goes on from place to place, the company increasing all the while.
I have real respect for Tchaikovsky trying to do something new - tell the story that follows on from a somewhat typical fantasy tale. Sadly for me, the story that went before sounds so much more interesting and engaging - the besting of a truly despicable being. This story is instead something of an empty, largely pointless journey. The ending leads us to believe someone had been luring people with the promise of magical items, to come to him and ultimately their doom - however, the trail leading to him was not exactly clear and the chances of anyone following it would be minimal (let alone someone following it at exactly the right pace to witness certain key events!). The world-building is epic and yet completely forgettable. I found myself forgetting who people were, why they were doing things and I completely missed one major reveal in the final chapters, only to re-read and find that there pretty much was no reveal.
I am a fan of Tchaikovsky's writing style but for me this book was a struggle to get through. I had no feelings towards any of the characters and couldn't remember or care where they had been or why, or what had happened. Not a worthwhile investment of my time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Braveheart (1995) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Epic
The Story of Scottish Patriot William Wallace (Mel Gibson) and his quest to unite the clans and rise up against their English oppressors.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a hot start by immediately drawing you into the story. Once the camera pans into the hut with all of the hanging bodies, they had my attention right away. The sheer intrigue was enough to make me want to see more.
Characters: 10
The Scots are a crazy bunch and I LOVE them. Whether old or young, they're all tough guys in their own right. One crazy person is enough to make a film interesting, but you put a bunch of them together and now you're really cooking with fire. William Wallace, of course, takes the cake of all the crazies. His character is easily one of my all-time favorite protagonists from his demeanor to the strong message he carries.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
You kind of cheat when you shoot a film in Scotland, let's be honest. Beautiful landscapes abound, filled with mountains and lush valleys. I got lost watching William Wallace ride through the countryside on horseback. Made me think, "Damn, am I taking enough vacations?"
It's not the landscapes, however, as the battles are epic and sprawling. You get a taste of a bit of blood or something gory right before it cuts to a new fight. Seeing a fight that probably took hours abbreviated into a couple minutes is jarring and effective. These are some of the best battles captured on film.
Conflict: 10
Genre: 7
Memorability: 8
Braveheart is a film that easily stands the test of time. The brotherhood of the clans alone is memorable in and of itself. These are guys that lay down their lives for each other to advance their nation. The battles that ensue as a result of the stand that these men take are sheer inspiration. "They can take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom!"
Pace: 10
While the film slows down just slightly after the opening scenes, once the fighting starts, things move forward at a breakneck pace. It drives you from one scene to the next with intensity and passion. Just when you think you've had enough action, you're graced with more! Very solid pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 5
The ending was a bit deflating, at least for my taste. I respected the realism, but it felt counterintuitive to what the rest of the film was accomplishing. Not horrible, but perhaps a different approach would warrant a better score.
Overall: 90
I never had any interest whatsoever to watch this film and, after finally seeing it, I can't believe I waited this long. Such an inspirational, all-time classic. Loved it.
Dog Jigsaw Puzzles
Games and Stickers
App
Cute dogs invite you to play dog puzzles for kids! Meet them in jigsaw puzzle! Kids, jigsaw...
Jigsaw Puzzles Games For Kids
Games and Stickers
App
Hey kids! Feel like puzzling these days? New puzzles for kids are in the game! Puzzle games for...
DRAGON QUEST IV Chapters of the Chosen
Games
App
******************** Dragon Quest IV, the first instalment in the Zenithian Trilogy, is now out on...
From the Fatherland with Love
Ryu Murakami, Charles De Wolf, Ralph McCarthy and Ginny Takemori
Book
An ambitious, epic dystopian novel - part political thriller and part satire. From the Fatherland,...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Yes Infinity War was good... but for me, Ant-Man And The Wasp was better. Yes IW was epic and devastating, but out of the two I didn't have any quibbles about this one. The CGI was what really did it for me. In IW Thanos' minions looked terrible, even when you take into consideration that they're aliens. But seeing the CGI in the flashback scenes in this one I was impressed at how real it all looked.
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
This is another film that makes me wish companies would think before they make their trailers. Fallout showed you a trailer that makes it look like Cavill is fighting Cruise and gives away a plot point that, at that point in the actual film, isn't certain. Fallen Kingdom shows you the shot of our giant aquatic friend playing with surfers, which in the actual movie doesn't happen until the closing scenes. In one of the Ant-Man trailers we see what amounts to the end of credits scene... yes there are things that are added to fit with the MCU timeline, but I don't feel like that really makes any difference to the situation. I also think that they should have left the shrinking building out of the trailers to give that a bigger impact in the release.
As far as the movies of the MCU go there are definitely some that are on the funnier side, and this fits that bill. Paul Rudd is obviously still a little goofy, and has an amazing montage sequence as he battles with his last few days of house arrest. But the real comedic star of this for me was Michael Peña. Lovable and an absolute gem. His face when he gets his hands on the Hot Wheels case... kid in a candy store. I truly hope that he survived the dusting of Infinity War. Pipe dreams I know, but I'm hoping he makes it through so he can Neville Longbottom Thanos.
To briefly cover the mid credit scene, which obviously left me with my jaw dropped a bit. There's one thing I'm wondering about, Scott says... "our new ghost friend"... now initially you'd think that he's talking about Ava, but she went off separately at the end of the film and it's got to take a fairly long time to make a new Quantum Tunnel, so could he be talking about someone else?
I still don't quite understand the decision to release this after IW considering the film itself is based before in the timeline, the only thing requiring it to be that way were the after credit scenes. Bit of a shame as I feel like after the epic nature of IW this has suffered as it's not on the same world ending and story completing level
MARVEL Contest of Champions
Entertainment and Games
7.8
Rate It
App
Prepare for epic versus-fighting action with your favorite Marvel Super Heroes & Super Villains in...