Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Mothers: A Novel in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Seventeen-year-old Nadia Turner is a beautiful high school senior. An intelligent girl, she's college bound. But Nadia is also reeling from the suicide of her mother and trying to make sense of a life that includes just her and her taciturn Marine father. Nadia founds herself drawn to Luke Sheppard, the son of the Pastor of the Upper Room, the church of her African American community. Twenty-one, Luke is a former football star who was derailed by injury in college. Now working at a local restaurant, he and Nadia embark on a secret romance, and Nadia winds up pregnant. Not ready to have a child, she chooses to have an abortion. But Nadia is unaware of the far reaching impact of her decision and how it will affect Luke, herself, and Nadia's best friend, Aubrey.
I'm a strange person who is often wary of reading hyped books, so I put off reading this novel for a while. And I certainly did enjoy it; I can't say that I didn't. I basically read it in one day, and I was very much drawn into the story. While Bennett focuses her story on Nadia, Luke, and Aubrey, she also employs a "Greek chorus" of sorts, composed of "the mothers"--the female elders from the church--who tell the story of Nadia from their third person point of view. It's a different sort of method to employ, but Bennett pulls it off. Still, for me, I found a lot of this novel predictable, and I never really became completely attached to any of the characters. What I did enjoy is how much of the tale is rooted in the bits of life that can drag us all down. It some ways, it very well details the mundane aspects of life - making them seem interesting and nuanced. We basically see the entire span of Nadia's life, which was compelling. However, while there is a depth and message to some of Bennett's story, I can't see it sticking with me for the long-term.
Overall, this is well-written novel and certainly worth picking up. Did I find it worth all the hype? Probably not. But I'm no doubt a bit more cynical than most. It's still an intriguing story that I enjoyed reading.
I'm a strange person who is often wary of reading hyped books, so I put off reading this novel for a while. And I certainly did enjoy it; I can't say that I didn't. I basically read it in one day, and I was very much drawn into the story. While Bennett focuses her story on Nadia, Luke, and Aubrey, she also employs a "Greek chorus" of sorts, composed of "the mothers"--the female elders from the church--who tell the story of Nadia from their third person point of view. It's a different sort of method to employ, but Bennett pulls it off. Still, for me, I found a lot of this novel predictable, and I never really became completely attached to any of the characters. What I did enjoy is how much of the tale is rooted in the bits of life that can drag us all down. It some ways, it very well details the mundane aspects of life - making them seem interesting and nuanced. We basically see the entire span of Nadia's life, which was compelling. However, while there is a depth and message to some of Bennett's story, I can't see it sticking with me for the long-term.
Overall, this is well-written novel and certainly worth picking up. Did I find it worth all the hype? Probably not. But I'm no doubt a bit more cynical than most. It's still an intriguing story that I enjoyed reading.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Blade (1998) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Blade is undeniably a product of it's time. It's the late 90s, everyone loves leather and shades, everyone loves Wesley Snipes, everyone loves dumb one liners, so the character of Blade is ripe for adaption.
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
But the importance of this gory action flick should absolutely not be understated. Not only was it the first proper big (ish) budget Marvel film, but it's pre dates Black Panther as the first superhero film with a black lead, and it pre dates The Punisher as the first R-rated Marvel blockbuster.
But in a pre X-Men world, comic book movies weren't a big deal at this point. I actually remember me and my friends sneakily renting and watching it (we were 10 at the time...) and none of them even knowing that Blade was even a comic book!
Here we are all these years later and the Blade trilogy is now remembered fondly (well, at least the first two are!)
Wesley Snipes is of course the star of this particular vehicle, and here, he is the most Wesley Snipes he's ever been. The cheesy one liners still come off well, and lend a nice comedic edge to the buckets of blood on display. The charm that he brings to the Blade character is the main reason why it's been hard to imagine anyone else in the role for so long (although I am here all day long for Mahershala Ali)
The other big character throughout the trilogy is Whistler, played by Kris Kristofferson, just generally being old, grumpy and badass, and is honestly the best character in the whole thing (here's hoping the MCU introduce a Whistler series on Disney+...)
Stephen Dorff plays Deacon Frost, the films villain, and he's really not much more than a generic superhero bad guy (the first of many).
The choreography and the fight scenes are pretty great, and the willingness to go hard R is what set Blade apart before comic book movies became a thing. It's sooooo bloody in parts, that it verges heavily into horror territory.
The CGI effects are utterly horrible by todays standards, but it's not used nearly enough to discredit the film too much.
Blade is a decent enough adaption of the cult Marvel series, and is a fun, gory blockbuster, but as mentioned, it's an important step in comic book cinema. Long live Blade!
Successful Selling in a Week: How to Excel in Sales in Seven Simple Steps
Book
Selling just got easier Good salespeople are in great demand. Sales skills are essential in starting...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Monsters University (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Monsters University brings Billy Crystal, John Goodman, and the whole gang back in what I can only describe as a huge win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Twelve years after Disney and Pixar brought us the wildly successful Monsters Inc., Pixar finally follows up with this year’s must-see family movie, which comes to us in the form of a prequel.
Monsters University opens by showing us a very young Mike Wazowski, who gets lost on a school trip to a very familiar scare floor at Monsters Inc. After surviving a trip to the human realm, he receives a hat from one of the professional scarers, emblazoned with MU. From that point on, a wide-eyed Wazowski dedicates his life to getting into Monsters University.
Fast forward many years and Mike is at his first day of college. MU becomes the backdrop for the education, friendships, scare games, and destiny-setting events that lead into the original movie we already know and love.
I was a bit skeptical going in I was a fan of the original, but prequels are damned hard to pull off, and kid/family movies aren’t typically my preference. Fortunately, after the first 15 minutes, the humor started picking up. The writers, designers, and artists did a masterful job of combining kid-humor antics with adult humor. Like many Pixar films, it contains one-liners and inside jokes that require life experience to really appreciate. (There was nothing dirty, just more adult-themed quips.)
I was impressed by the pacing, the detail, and the seamless flow of the animation, not to mention the excellent voice talent. Crystal, Goodman, Nathan Fillion, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, and all the other actors did top-notch work.
I do have two complaints. There was not one mention of Mike Wazowski’s parents. We don’t know who they were or what they did, nor did we even get a visual of what they looked like. In a world occupied by such a wide variety of monsters, my curiosity was piqued. Even more maddening was the repeated mention of James P (Sulley) Sullivan’s father, who was apparently a very famous scarer. Sully is repeatedly reminded of living up to the family name, yet we never see so much as a picture showcasing his family. Perhaps this was addressed in a scene that didn’t make it from storyboards to the final cut.
Those minor issues aside, Monsters University is done very well, and it is extremely entertaining. From the many laugh-out-loud moments to the solemn, tear-jerking scenes, this movie is a real win.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Les Misérables (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Words cannot express how amazing this movie is. For those of you who have shouldered through the modern-day musical revival; suffering through the questionable singing talents of many stars as “Phantom of the Opera,” “Chicago,” “Moulin Rouge,” “Sweeny Todd,” and that abysmal rendition of “Nine” – I can assure you, that “Les Mis” will change that perception. For once, the casting crew took the time to select a cast capable of the repertoire’s vocal demands (and Les Mis is very vocally demanding – as most operatic pieces are). It’s apparent that each singer was heavily vocally coached and trained, some faring more so than others. While this is no replacement for raw talent, I can assure you that the cast was downright fantastic.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
For years I studied and sang opera. I know music and I’ve sung my fair share of Les Mis pieces in my past. I adore Victor Hugo and “Les Misérables” is by far one of my favorite literary works. When I began to watch this movie, I was keyed up to be critical on the vocal spectrum, the literary aspect, and the representation of one of my favorite Broadway/London pieces. To be frank, I wasn’t disappointed at all.
For those unfamiliar with Hugo’s work or what to expect with Les Mis, let me give you a brief synopsis on its plot and the history of the French revolution in which this takes place. France has just endured her infamous Revolution (the one with the guillotine, Marie-Antoinette, and the Sans Culottes movement) and her people are still suffering. There is no money for food, the country is in the midst of a depression, and the Napoleonic regime is yet to come to fruition. Thus, you find Fantine (Hathaway), a poor but determined (and beautiful) woman trying desperately to make enough money to support her daughter, Cosette, who resides with friends in another city. The book reveals that Madame Thénardier (Bonham-Carter) and her husband, Thénardier (Baron-Cohen) were supposed to be taking the money that Fantine had given to them to provide for her daughter, Cosette. Instead, however, Cosette is forced to live in absolute poverty while Thénardier’s daughter, Eponine, lives the life of opulence. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict, is trying desperately to find legitimate work after his stint in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to provide for his starving family. The infamous policeman, Javert (Crowe), feels Valjean will re-offend and makes it his mission to pursue Valjean until the end.
Finding the world a terrible place as an ex-convict, Valjean seeks to steal from a church her silver, believing he has no other way to survive. It is the love of a good priest, however, who gives Valjean the silver he seeks under the pledge he will become a servant of God and provide for others the same good he has provided for him. Thus, years later, we find Valjean a reformed man (who has skipped on his parole and assumed a new name), running a factory in which Fantine works. And so, when Fantine is fired from her job and takes to a life of prostitution in order to provide for her daughter, it is Valjean who feels the burden of her demise and takes it upon himself to save Cosette and raise her as his own.
Of course, this entire time, Javert is pursuing Valjean and a new revolution is starting to take place amongst Paris’ people. Years later we find Cosette grown to womanhood (now played by Seyfried), and falling in love with one of the revolution’s key players, a youth by the name of Marius (Redmayne). The Thénardiers are back again and we find their once-grand lifestyle has resorted to a life of gutter-crime and Éponine (now played by Barks), is desperately in love with Marius as well (although her love is unrequited). For those unfamiliar with how the story plays out, I will leave it at that.
I will caution those who have never seen this play to prepare for a long show. It is very dramatic and very intense, but visually breath-taking and emotionally moving in so many ways. Vocally, there are times when the legato is lacking and some transitions seemed forced (Crowe struggled many times with allowing his natural vibrato to come through instead of pushing a sustained note; Seyfried’s vibrato is very trill-like and sometimes distracts from the pure quality of her spinto-soprano range). However, I must say that I was blown away by Hathway’s performance (she brought me to tears with “I Dreamed a Dream” due to her emotional rendition) and her ability to truly escape into her character. Similarly, Tviet (he played Enjolras) was stunning with his vocal command and Redmayne was equally as impressive. Jackman will amaze you with his rich tenor and, surprisingly, I found Crowe to have a fantastic baritone when he didn’t force his work. Baron-Cohen and Bonham-Carter provided a much needed comical respite throughout the film (and both sing beautifully as well, although this movie didn’t focus on their vocal command as much). Barks did a lovely job for most of her work; although I found her rendition of “On My Own” a bit forced (she is a true mezzo but seemed to push her high notes, although this may have been where her voice shifted into her head voice which is no fault of her own).
Overall, if you are an avid musical lover and have been waiting for a proper rendition of this production, this movie will astound you. Visually, the movie is breath-taking and the acting is absolutely fantastic. I’m still haunted by the revolutionary song, to be honest. If you’ve been waiting for a musical worthy of the big screen, this one is it. Look for it to sweep the Oscars this year.
This movie deserves an A all around.
GoldieBlox: Adventures in Coding - The Rocket Cupcake Co.
Education and Entertainment
App
** Pay once and play forever! No in-app purchases! Never-ending puzzles! ** Attention, future...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Flash (2023) in Movies
Jun 7, 2023
Amidst numerous delays and offscreen speculations about the fate of the movie, Director Andy Muschietti has finally seen his big-screen adaptation of DC Comics "The Flash" arrive.
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
We first saw the film in late April at Cinemacon and now that we have seen the final cut with additional footage and a noticing credits, I can finally give you my impressions.
The movie opens with Barry Allen (Ezra Miller), called into action to help with an issue in Gotham City which offers a chance for an extended action scene as well as some cameo appearances that should delight fans.
Like most superheroes, Barry has to contend with work and personal issues and his time as the Flash often makes him late for work and even more of a social outcast than he already is. And the arrival of an old school friend reminds him that his father is scheduled to have a court appearance on appeal of his conviction for murdering his wife many years earlier. Barry is obsessed with proving his father's innocence however there is little evidence that can support his appeal.
Despite warnings not to alter time, Barry travels to the past to make a slight adjustment which results in his mother living and growing up in a two-parent household for himself.
His euphoria becomes short-lived when Barry runs into a younger version of himself and realizes that if he does not enable his younger self with his powers, then he will never exist to create the alternate reality where his parents are safe and happy.
The younger Barry is extremely immature and annoying and when he becomes confused with powers while the other loses them, there are numerous opportunities for comic mayhem which the film briefly touches upon before returning to the more serious aspects of the story.
As he was warned, Barry has created fractions in reality, and the one that he finds himself in has several changes from the one that knows including a world free of superpowered beings. This becomes a serious problem when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives and there is no Superman or Justice League to save the day.
In an act of desperation, Barry seeks out Batman (Michael Keaton), and is shocked to discover that he is different than the one that he knows in his reality. Both Barrys and Batman hatch a plan of desperation that sees them desperately mounting a rescue and offensive to save humanity.
The film has some fantastic visual effects but like most hero films becomes heavily bogged down on them in a final act that in many ways seems at times anticlimactic to the potential that the story has been building to. Miller is solid as the two Barrys although the younger version of them becomes very annoying and at times and some segments drag on.
Keaton absolutely steals the film and brings a much-needed presence to the action as he seems to really be enjoying his return to the role and his segments are often the most compelling parts of the film as he provides a stabilizing and grounding presence to the Barrys.
There are numerous cameos throughout the film that I will not spoil but suffice it to say they should delight fans and do offer some intriguing questions.
The biggest issue now is the future of the character as Gunn and Saffron are busy building their DC universe while outside projects currently are in the works. It is not a secret that legal issues and outside distractions have been associated with Miller to the point where some question whether the film could be released despite its lavish budget.
The final box office numbers will be very interesting because I found the film quite enjoyable and a pleasant surprise in one of the better DC cinematic efforts notwithstanding the final act which became a bit formulaic and anticlimactic for my liking. While it doesn't approach the level of several of the Marvel films, it does show that there is plenty of potential to make solid stories within the DC universe.
4 stars out of 5
Santa Video Call & Tracker Pro
Entertainment and Lifestyle
App
Video Call Santa! Voice Call Santa! Message Santa! Track Santa! The only Santa Video Call app with...
