Search
Search results
Princess Salon 2 - Makeup, Dressup, Spa and Makeover - Girls Beauty Salon Games
Beauty, Education and Games
App
Dear friends, let’s welcome the beautiful girls from Princess Salon 2! Thanks for your patient...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Book Club (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A book club without a spine.
Let’s be clear before we start; I am NOT in the demographic that this film is aimed at. And judging from the general reactions of the cinema audience I shared this with – 90%+ of who were women aged over 50 – my views are NOT going to necessarily reflect the general view, since there seemed to be quite a few satisfied customers in the audience. But my personal view would be, if you’re going to make a light-hearted comedy aimed at the lucrative silver pound, then at least make it a good one. For this – for me – felt like 50 shades of lame.
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
The action – if we can stretch the use of English that far – revolves around the four middle-class white ladies (this film challenges neither class nor racial divides) who meet periodically with copious quantities of wine and goat-cheese stuffed tomatoes to discuss a book. Hotel owner Vivian (Jane Fonda, “Klute”, “On Golden Pond”) is making lots of love but is reluctant to commit to it herself; Diane (Diane Keaton, “”Annie Hall”, “Something’s Gotta Give”) is recently widowed and struggling against being pigeon-holed as an ‘old duffer’ by her two daughters; Sharon (Candice Bergen, “Soldier Blue”, “Miss Congeniality”) has devoted her life to her career as a high court judge at the expense of a physical relationship (“What happens to a vagina that hasn’t been used in 18 years?!”); and Carol (Mary Steenburgen (“Back to the Future Part III”) is in a sexless marriage with her recently retired husband Bruce (Craig T Nelson, “Get Hard“, “Poltergeist”).
Vivian introduces the book club to “50 Shades of Grey” and the book influences everyone’s lives in different ways.
What ensues is 100 minutes of double entendres (“You have a lethargic pussy” says a veterinarian… you get the level) as the four separate stories (bump and) grind towards their separate conclusions. There are one or too laugh-out-loud moments but the majority of the screenplay is merely smile-worthy: “Mostly harmless” as Douglas Adams would have said.
What IS good, which is the reason my rating won’t have a “1” in it, is that it does give a reason to see some of our more senior actors and actresses strut their stuff again on the main stage.
In terms of the lead performances, while Steenburgen is good, it is Candice Bergen who impresses most as a fine comic actress. More please! Fonda and Don Johnson (“Miami Vice”) were supposed to be a hot couple, but their acting to me appeared false and their chemistry non-existent: did they have a fight outside the trailer every morning? And Diane Keaton was… well… Diane Keaton: the ditzy old hippy shtick wore a bit thin for me by the end.
We also have appearances from the great Andy Garcia (“The Godfather Part III”, “Oceans 11”), Wallace Shawn (just SOOooo good as the sleazy mob lawyer in “The Good Wife/Fight”) and (best of all) Richard Dreyfuss (“Jaws”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”). Dreyfuss has merely a cameo, but I was just longing for more of his character.
Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”, “Batman & Robin”) even turns up, but her character (together with her sister played by Katie Aselton) is so annoying and vacuous that it’s not easy to warm to her.
A standout – but not in a good way – is the special effects, with some of the dodgiest green screen work I’ve seen in many a year. Think “North by Northwest” quality….. but that’s nearly 60 years old!
So, it’s not a film I would run to see again, but I’m not going to pan it completely, since if you are of the demographic that enjoys such films, you may really enjoy this one. It reminds me somewhat of “It’s Complicated” – and that’s one of my wife’s personal favourites! It also addresses some key topics that will be of relevance to a senior audience, not normally addressed by movies: male impotence resulting from self-doubt; the need to keep a young and ever-inquiring mind; and the good times to be had by getting out and back in the game again after bereavement (yes, you know who you are and you know I’m addressing YOU here!).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Doctor Strange (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Well multiversed.
In the latest Marvel film (notably now available with the snazzy new Marvel production logo at the start) Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock”, “Star Trek Into Darkness”) plays the titular hero: a neurosurgeon with exceptional skills, an encyclopedic knowledge of discographies and an ego to rival Donald Trump.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
After an horrific car crash (topically addressing the dangers of mobile use while driving) Strange loses the ability to practice his craft, and descends into a spiral of self-pity and despair. Finding a similar soul, Jonathan Pangborn (Benjamin Bratt, “24: Live Another Day”) who’s undergone a miracle cure, Strange travels to Katmandu in search of similar salvation where he is trained in spiritual control by “The Ancient One” (Tilda Swinton, “Hail Caesar”, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”) ably supported by her assistant Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”) and librarian Wong (Benedict Wong, “The Martian”). So far so “Batman Begins”.
As always in these films though there is also a villain, in this case a rogue former pupil turned to the dark side (have we not been here before Anakin?) called Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelssen, “Quantum of Solace”). The world risks total destruction from spiritual attack (“…the Avengers handle the physical threats…” – LOL) and the team stand together to battle Kaecilius’s attempts to open a portal (“Zuuuul”) and ‘let the right one in’.
Followers of this blog will generally be aware that I am not a great fan of the Marvel and DC universes in general. However, there is a large variation in the style of films dished out by the studios ranging from the pompously full-of-themselves films at the “Batman vs Superman” (bottom) end to the more light-hearted (bordering on “Kick-Ass-style”) films at the “Ant Man” (top) end. Along this continuum I would judge “Doctor Strange” to be about a 7: so it is a lot more fun than I expected it to be.
The film is largely carried by Cumberbatch, effecting a vaguely annoying American accent but generally adding acting credence to some pretty ludicrous material. In particular he milks all the comic lines to maximum effect, leading to some genuinely funny moments: yes, the comedy gold extends past Ejiofor’s (very funny) wi-fi password line in the trailer.
Cumberbatch also has the range to convincingly play the fall of the egocentric Strange: his extreme unpleasantness towards his beleaguered on/off girlfriend (the ever-reliable Rachel McAdams (“Sherlock Holmes”)) drew audible gasps of shock from a few of the ‘Cumberbitches’ in my screening. (As I’m writing this on November 9th, the day of Trumpagedden, we might have already found a candidate able to play the new President elect!)
In fact, the whole of the first half of the film is a delight: Strange’s decline; effective Nepalese locations; a highly entertaining “training” sequence; and Cumberbatch and Swinton sparking off each other beautifully.
Where the film pitches downhill is where it gets too “BIG”: both in a hugely overblown New York morphing sequence (the – remember – human heroes suffer skyscraper-level falls without injury) and where (traditionally) a cosmic being gets involved and our puny heroes have to defend earth against it. Once again we have a “big CGI thing” centre screen with the logic behind the (long-term) defeating of the “big CGI thing” little better than that behind the defeat of the “big CGI thing” in “Batman vs Superman” (but without Gal Gadot’s legs unfortunately to distract the male audience).
Music is by Michael Giacchino, and his suitably bombastic Strange theme is given a very nice reworking over the end titles. By the way, for those who are interested in “Monkeys” (see glossary) there is a scene a few minutes into the credits featuring Strange and one of the Avengers (fairly pointless) and a second right at the end of the credits featuring Pangborn and Mordo setting up (not very convincingly I must say) the potential villain for Strange 2.
Not Shakespeare, but still an enjoyable and fun night out at the movies and far better than I was expecting.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Less contained than the first film - we get to see more of the outside world. (2 more)
More monsters.
Cillian Murphy's performance.
Uses jump scares as a crutch (1 more)
Marcus is a bit of a unbearable turd in the film.
Long Time, No Hear
A Quiet Place Part II begins with a flashback chronicling the first day the creatures arrived. It’s also an excuse to allow John Krasinski’s Lee Abbott character to show up again despite dying in the previous film. Day 1 is mostly the scene in the trailer where the creatures are destroying the town and everyone is learning that they attack based on sound. And yes, this scene would have been and is far more effective if you haven’t seen the trailer several times beforehand.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
What’s great about this sequel is that it is no longer so contained. The Abbott family is forced to leave their farm and their home and go out into the outside world. But the scariest aspect of all is that the monsters aren’t the most inhuman thing to exist in whatever remains of this desolate world – it’s the human survivors.
The sequel seems to feature far more of the creatures than the original film. It’s not that they weren’t around in the original film, but A Quiet Place Part II gives them a more prominent presence. There seems to be more of them. The film does utilize jump scares a bit more often than it should. They’re cheap tactics to begin with, but become more and more annoying after the first one or two times they’re used in a film.
Marcus Abbott (Noah Jupe) is nearly unbearable until the last ten or so minutes of the film, but it’s also a sensible form of irritation. Marcus lost his little brother and his father in the previous film and, without spoiling too much, doesn’t have a great time in the sequel. He doesn’t want to lose anyone else close to him and is now incredibly attached to the family members he has left. This results in Marcus being too clingy when someone needs to go on a supply run or has an idea that could potentially save everyone.
Cillian Murphy inherits the male lead since Lee Abbott’s exit. Murphy plays a character named Emmett and is actually a friend of the Abbott family. Emmett has lost everyone and everything and has remained relatively close to the Abbott’s farm even after the creatures arrived, but he never came for them. He has shelter and some supplies, but has spent so much time being on his own that he’s forgotten how to sympathize with anyone who isn’t himself. Murphy delivers this gloriously conflicted performance where he seems to be constantly struggling. Emmett often knows the right thing that should be done, but wants to remain hidden. He basically wants to survive over being a compassionate human being.
The formula for A Quiet Place II is intriguing because it plays out like an episodic arc of The Walking Dead. The zombie element is replaced with the creatures as the human characters go on supply runs, look for other survivors, and search for a sanctuary that may or may not exist. Since both A Quiet Place films are PG-13, there’s not much in the gore department. You’re attacked by these creatures and you’re basically just gone. The way the creature’s heads open up like a flower whenever they’re around audio feedback is visually similar to The Last of Us or even Resident Evil.
A Quiet Place Part II ditches the tension and the stealth the first film was known for and introduces more monsters, more action, more characters, and more of a world that’s barely hanging on by a thread. Lee’s oldest kids become they key players here while Emily Blunt takes a backseat. Cillian Murphy proves why he’s one of the most underrated actors working today. Overall, A Quiet Place Part II is an exceptionally entertaining sequel with quality performances and a primary focus on monster mayhem which, as horror and suspense fans, we should all get behind.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Ugly by Kelly Vincent in Books
May 29, 2022
I was so happy when I read the synopsis for Ugly by Kelly Vincent. This sounded exactly like the kind of book I needed to get me out of my reading slump. I was correct in my assumption. I absolutely loved this book!
Ugly is the story of a teenager named Nicole, or Nic as she goes by since she hates being called Nicole, Nic is 16 years old and lives in Oklahoma. Nic is made fun of at school and everywhere she goes. She's constantly being mistaken for a male everywhere she goes. During her sophomore school year, she starts questioning her sexuality and her gender identity.
It's obvious that the author knew exactly what she was talking about before writing Ugly from being gender non-conforming to even the therapy sessions Nic goes to. Ugly is definitely a well written book for sure. I like how Ugly draws attention to the struggles of not conforming to every day gender and sexual standards. I also want to give a shout out to the author for mentioning asexuality in the book. (I wish more LGBTQ+ books would talk about asexuality.) However, one minor gripe I have is that it mentions a character might be asexual because they didn't want/hadn't been in a relationship. Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction. Asexuals still can want a romantic relationship. Aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. (Even then, asexuality and aromanticism have many more identities under their umbrella.) If the character was an aromantic asexual, it would have made more sense why they didn't want a relationship. Other than that, I loved everything about Ugly. My favorite part of the book (although all of it was fantastic) was when Nic goes to Scotland and sees just how different the people over there are compared to the people in the United States. I felt the same way as Nic when I lived in the United Kingdom. It did feel like people in the UK were less judgmental and more accepting than people here in the US.
Reading Ugly was like being in the mind of a teenager throughout a school year in their life. While the book goes through even the mundane day to day life of Nic, I still thoroughly enjoyed reading about Nic's life. Her struggle of trying to fit in whilst being made fun of and bullied really resonated with me. I felt like I was reading a biography about my life almost. I've never identified more with a book before! I think many teens and adults that were bullied, even those that are secure in their sexuality, will be able to relate to Nic on some level. Nic was the most relatable character I have ever read about. I would have loved to be friends with someone like her back in school (and even today). I also loved Nic's best friend Sam. Sam was just about the opposite of Nic both personality wise and looks wise. I loved how much Sam really cared about Nic.
Trigger warnings for Ugly include profanity, underage drinking, some minor drug use, some talks of politics, child molestation (though the book doesn't go into detail), bullying (including characters telling another character "kill yourself"), and depression.
Overall, Ugly is a book that should be in every school library as well as every public library. I feel like it's such an important book for teens (and adults), especially for those struggling with their sexuality and/or gender identity in this day and age. The research the author has put into the book as well as the author's ability to write a solid novel help to make Ugly such a fantastic read. I would definitely recommend Ugly by Kelly Vincent to everyone aged 14+ whether they are part of the LGBTQ+ community or not. This is a book that everyone should read due to its important topic.
(A special thank you to Goddess Fish Promotions for providing me with an eBook of Ugly by Kelly Vincent in exchange for a fair and honest review.)
Ugly is the story of a teenager named Nicole, or Nic as she goes by since she hates being called Nicole, Nic is 16 years old and lives in Oklahoma. Nic is made fun of at school and everywhere she goes. She's constantly being mistaken for a male everywhere she goes. During her sophomore school year, she starts questioning her sexuality and her gender identity.
It's obvious that the author knew exactly what she was talking about before writing Ugly from being gender non-conforming to even the therapy sessions Nic goes to. Ugly is definitely a well written book for sure. I like how Ugly draws attention to the struggles of not conforming to every day gender and sexual standards. I also want to give a shout out to the author for mentioning asexuality in the book. (I wish more LGBTQ+ books would talk about asexuality.) However, one minor gripe I have is that it mentions a character might be asexual because they didn't want/hadn't been in a relationship. Asexuality is the lack of sexual attraction. Asexuals still can want a romantic relationship. Aromanticism is the lack of romantic attraction. (Even then, asexuality and aromanticism have many more identities under their umbrella.) If the character was an aromantic asexual, it would have made more sense why they didn't want a relationship. Other than that, I loved everything about Ugly. My favorite part of the book (although all of it was fantastic) was when Nic goes to Scotland and sees just how different the people over there are compared to the people in the United States. I felt the same way as Nic when I lived in the United Kingdom. It did feel like people in the UK were less judgmental and more accepting than people here in the US.
Reading Ugly was like being in the mind of a teenager throughout a school year in their life. While the book goes through even the mundane day to day life of Nic, I still thoroughly enjoyed reading about Nic's life. Her struggle of trying to fit in whilst being made fun of and bullied really resonated with me. I felt like I was reading a biography about my life almost. I've never identified more with a book before! I think many teens and adults that were bullied, even those that are secure in their sexuality, will be able to relate to Nic on some level. Nic was the most relatable character I have ever read about. I would have loved to be friends with someone like her back in school (and even today). I also loved Nic's best friend Sam. Sam was just about the opposite of Nic both personality wise and looks wise. I loved how much Sam really cared about Nic.
Trigger warnings for Ugly include profanity, underage drinking, some minor drug use, some talks of politics, child molestation (though the book doesn't go into detail), bullying (including characters telling another character "kill yourself"), and depression.
Overall, Ugly is a book that should be in every school library as well as every public library. I feel like it's such an important book for teens (and adults), especially for those struggling with their sexuality and/or gender identity in this day and age. The research the author has put into the book as well as the author's ability to write a solid novel help to make Ugly such a fantastic read. I would definitely recommend Ugly by Kelly Vincent to everyone aged 14+ whether they are part of the LGBTQ+ community or not. This is a book that everyone should read due to its important topic.
(A special thank you to Goddess Fish Promotions for providing me with an eBook of Ugly by Kelly Vincent in exchange for a fair and honest review.)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Hell's Angels (1930) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Big budget, elaborate air combat scenes which resulted in several deaths and Gimmick after gimmick… This has to be the Howard Hughes’ World War 1 epic, Hell’s Angels.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Where to begin?
Well, we follow the Routledge two brothers as they join the war effort and the Royal Air Corps. in 1914 and whilst one is a somewhat cowardly womaniser, his brother is the noble heroic type who spends the film being screwed over bey everyone in one way or another, but most notably by his girlfriend, Jean Harlow, who is so annoyingly wrong for him that it is a relief when he has heart is broken by her in the third act.
But like mots aspects of this plot, this is as messy and disjointed as everything else. We are given a story line to follow for two hours, as Hughes indulges his legendary love of flying to create some of the best dog fight sequences ever committed to film. They are real, epic and effective in conveying the thrilling danger of these world war one battles.
But this is a film of gimmick. Pushing the pre-code envelope with sex and bad language, this was originally conceived as a silent movie and was re-written and re-shot to become the sound movie whcih we have to today and there in clearly lies the problem. What we end up is a movie cobbled together, with silence sequences being converted to sound, the poor acting from its star James Hall as the idealistic Roy Routledge, Jean Harlow, replacing the original silent star Gretta Nissen for this sound version, excelling in her role as his trampy girlfriend and Ben Lyon as the weaker brother, Monte, but the real star of this show are the special effects.
But of the human stars, Harlow, presented here in the only colour footage known to exist of the tragic star, who would die at the young age of 26 just seven years later, probably delivers one of the best performances in the whole picture, certainly outshining her male co-stars.
Of the special effects though, the use of 2-tone Technicolor, which was actually shot with the Metrocolor system but processed by Technicolor, in one sequence as the group are all together at a party, as well as the classical use of tints during some other scenes, add a vibrancy to the project. But this also can have a jarring effect, especially as we leave the colour scenes and wrap up thet sequences in black and white.
But the model effects, notably the munition raid at the end and the Zeppelin bombing London scenes are spectacular, especially for the time. The other notable gimmick which has yet to be transferred to the small screen, was the original use of what was called Magnascope back in 1930.
This was obviously only used at high end theaters but this paved the way for what IMAX are doing now, by blowing up the aerial scenes into a larger screen format from the 1.20:1 ratio which the the rest of film was presented. But when you add all this up you have got a mess!
Magnascope, technicolor scenes, tinted scenes, daring aerial battles, a half arsed love story and an image of world war which was a kin to that of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor’s (2001) view of World War 2! But this is what this is. An early, lavish popcorn blockbuster, with little to offer but cinematic thrills, which it succeeds at without any doubt.
The action is great, the plot is mediocre to say the least but as film, it does offer a brief insight into how cinema audiences saw the Great War back in 1930 and you can not help but think that this audience was only nine years away from the next one as we watch this.
pictureBut the ending was grim, with noble ends rounding off a story of brotherly love and love of duty and country, seems overblown considering what we had had to sit through but still, by the end, is anybody really routing for the Routledge brothers to have a happy ending?
I certainly was not. But this ending is the nearest thing that this film has to a story arc, as is pays off the opening act where Roy risks his life fighting a duel for his cowardly brother against the very German officer who is about to have them executed.
Duty wins out and Monte sees the light at the end after a very melodramatic death scene.
But having said all that, this film is worth it for the action alone and for film buffs, the only colour footage of Jean Harlow.
Fred (860 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
Not worth your time
Let's face it, Marvel doesn't really have any female characters that can lead a movie by themselves. We are told this is the first, but yet our main character is surrounded by men & well established characters like Nick Fury & Agent Coulson from S.H.I.E.L.D.
This movie was surrounded by controversy because it's star, Brie Larson, said something about the movie being for the empowerment of women & doesn't care what white men think about it. This set off white men who boycotted the movie, which didn't amount to much, since the movie was still a hit. But did it deserve it?
Okay, so when I see a movie, I quite frankly watch the movie & base my review on it. Yes, I'm a white male who should be bothered by Larson's words, but being a movie fan & a superhero movie fan, I am able to block that out & watch the movie.
So, here we go. I am a Fantastic Four fan. They have been & always will be my favorite comic book. And so, I was looking forward to finally seeing the Skrulls on film. I won't give anything away, but I'll say the Skrulls were done very well, as were the Kree. Now we've seen the Kree before in the Marvel films, but not the Skrulls. So, the movie has that going for it.
The effects to give us a young Samuel Jackson & a young Clark Gregg have been perfected. Yes, we've seen it before, but now it's not even noticeable.
Now, let's get to the movie itself. It's typical Marvel fare, starts off good, gets boring, ends with a bang. The story is quite mediocre, with no real surprises. It's set in the 90s, to try to get that nostalgia people love in today's film. But quite frankly, the 90s were not that great. The music sucked (evidenced by the horrible songs in this movie) & had nothing worth while to be nostalgic over. Yeah, you 90s kids will disagree, but don't worry, the music's only got worse since then, so at least you music is better than the last 20 years'. Now, get off my lawn, punks!
The main problem with this movie is Captain Marvel herself. Like I said, she's not a great enough character to pull off having her own movie to begin with. The character is not a strong character. Yes, she's powerful, but that's not what I mean. I mean she's not a huge comic book character. Is she as well know as let's say, Wonder Woman? Not even close. I can guarantee that most of the people who saw this movie knew little about the character. It's not Marvel's fault. See, although the new thing in movies is to have strong women in the leads, to use older comic book characters doesn't work too well. Women in the comics were hardly represented the way they are in the films of today. They were always weaker, always the damsels in distress. So when today we get the movie people saying "This female character is the strongest in the universe." or "This female character is the smartest in the universe.", it takes years of pushing aside comic book discrimination to accept that.
But okay, I can push that aside. An even bigger problem is Brie Larson herself. She is bland to say the least. We needed a strong actor to push this character in our faces & say "Yeah! She's the best! A real hero!" But, no. She's not. She doesn't even make the character interesting at all. She's a shell of a character. At the end when she's flighting & flying around & smashing things, she feels like she's a CGI puppet being pushed through the scene. There's no sense of power. I don't care about her. I'm not cheering her on, nor am I wanting her to fail. There's just nothing. When she appears in Endgame, it's the same feeling. If the main character is uninteresting, how can the movie be any good?
In the end, I'm giving this one of the lowest scores of all the Marvel films. If not for the supporting cast, which were good, I probably would have given this a 2 out of 10. This movie is unnecessary to the overall plot of the MCU. There are some good lines, good parts, but not enough to want to watch it again.
This movie was surrounded by controversy because it's star, Brie Larson, said something about the movie being for the empowerment of women & doesn't care what white men think about it. This set off white men who boycotted the movie, which didn't amount to much, since the movie was still a hit. But did it deserve it?
Okay, so when I see a movie, I quite frankly watch the movie & base my review on it. Yes, I'm a white male who should be bothered by Larson's words, but being a movie fan & a superhero movie fan, I am able to block that out & watch the movie.
So, here we go. I am a Fantastic Four fan. They have been & always will be my favorite comic book. And so, I was looking forward to finally seeing the Skrulls on film. I won't give anything away, but I'll say the Skrulls were done very well, as were the Kree. Now we've seen the Kree before in the Marvel films, but not the Skrulls. So, the movie has that going for it.
The effects to give us a young Samuel Jackson & a young Clark Gregg have been perfected. Yes, we've seen it before, but now it's not even noticeable.
Now, let's get to the movie itself. It's typical Marvel fare, starts off good, gets boring, ends with a bang. The story is quite mediocre, with no real surprises. It's set in the 90s, to try to get that nostalgia people love in today's film. But quite frankly, the 90s were not that great. The music sucked (evidenced by the horrible songs in this movie) & had nothing worth while to be nostalgic over. Yeah, you 90s kids will disagree, but don't worry, the music's only got worse since then, so at least you music is better than the last 20 years'. Now, get off my lawn, punks!
The main problem with this movie is Captain Marvel herself. Like I said, she's not a great enough character to pull off having her own movie to begin with. The character is not a strong character. Yes, she's powerful, but that's not what I mean. I mean she's not a huge comic book character. Is she as well know as let's say, Wonder Woman? Not even close. I can guarantee that most of the people who saw this movie knew little about the character. It's not Marvel's fault. See, although the new thing in movies is to have strong women in the leads, to use older comic book characters doesn't work too well. Women in the comics were hardly represented the way they are in the films of today. They were always weaker, always the damsels in distress. So when today we get the movie people saying "This female character is the strongest in the universe." or "This female character is the smartest in the universe.", it takes years of pushing aside comic book discrimination to accept that.
But okay, I can push that aside. An even bigger problem is Brie Larson herself. She is bland to say the least. We needed a strong actor to push this character in our faces & say "Yeah! She's the best! A real hero!" But, no. She's not. She doesn't even make the character interesting at all. She's a shell of a character. At the end when she's flighting & flying around & smashing things, she feels like she's a CGI puppet being pushed through the scene. There's no sense of power. I don't care about her. I'm not cheering her on, nor am I wanting her to fail. There's just nothing. When she appears in Endgame, it's the same feeling. If the main character is uninteresting, how can the movie be any good?
In the end, I'm giving this one of the lowest scores of all the Marvel films. If not for the supporting cast, which were good, I probably would have given this a 2 out of 10. This movie is unnecessary to the overall plot of the MCU. There are some good lines, good parts, but not enough to want to watch it again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Incredibles 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Was it worth the wait?
It’s been fourteen years since Pixar introduced the likes of Violet, Dash, Robert and Helen Parr onto unsuspecting audiences across the globe. The quartet of superheroes swiftly became one of the studio’s best and most profitable films, with a loyal legion of fans begging for a sequel soon after.
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/
Nevertheless, Pixar went on to create some of the greatest animated films of all time. Then the slump came. After Cars and its dreadful sequel came and went and The Good Dinosaur reminded us that not even Pixar was immune from the movie critic curse, they swiftly regrouped and brought us the thrilling Coco and new classic, Inside Out. Now, 14 years later, Mr Incredible and the team are back. But are we looking at a classic Pixar, or a sequel that is too little too late?
Everyone’s favourite family of superheroes is back, but this time Helen (Holly Hunter) is in the spotlight, leaving Bob (Craig T. Nelson) at home with Violet (Sarah Vowell) and Dash (Huck Milner) to navigate the day-to-day heroics of normal life. It’s a tough transition for everyone, made tougher by the fact that the family is unaware of Jack-Jack’s superpowers. When a new villain hatches a dangerous plot, the family and Frozone (Samuel L. Jackson) must find a way to work together again.
Picking up immediately after the events of its predecessor, Incredibles 2 is a thrilling and entertaining sequel that reeks of quality. Everything from the voice acting to the animation is leaps and bounds ahead of the first film and this is testament to the incredible technological gains Pixar has made over the last decade.
Brad Bird is once again in the director’s chair and that familiarity lends it the same heart and emotional engagement of its predecessor. We, as the audience, feel truly invested in the characters again, as we did all that time ago. This time however, the action is dialled up to 11 with some truly exceptional set-pieces.
Thankfully, this is not at the cost of what made The Incredibles such a hit, family drama. The central family unit remains as prevalent as it did before, but this time we have Jack-Jack’s powers thrown into the mix with Elastigirl taking centre stage over Mr. Incredible. This new dynamic is a welcome change from the very male-centric blockbusters we’ve had over the last few years; Wonder Woman being the obvious exception.
The animation is, well incredible. While the quirky character designs never let you forget you’re watching an animated feature, the over-the-top set design means it sits perfectly together. Where The Good Dinosaur went wrong was in its presentation of photo-realistic visuals paired with cartoon-like characters; it simply didn’t work.
Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait
We also have a very interesting villain to contend with. The Screenslaver is pure popcorn wickedness at its very best. It’s amazing that The Incredibles series has scored 2/2 when it comes to their antagonists, yet Marvel still manages to struggle with its bad guys. The Screenslaver may not quite match up the brilliance of Syndrome from its predecessor, but it comes pretty close.
There’s also the welcome return of Edna Mode (voiced by director Brad Bird). Her part is perhaps a little too short, but maintaining her cameo status means she doesn’t feel as overcooked as the minions did after their first solo outing. In the end, we want more Edna, rather than having too much and this is a good thing.
Plot wise, it’s fantastic. With a central storyline about a changing family dynamic, it’s sure to resonate with both children and adults. There are plot twists that wouldn’t look out of place in a live-action feature and some great voice acting by all of the cast.
Negatives? Well it’s hard to think of any whatsoever. This is a much more engaging film than its predecessor but at 118 minutes, it’s long by animation standards. The pacing is a little off just before the finale kicks off, but this is my main and only complaint.
Overall, Incredibles 2 is a sequel that was absolutely worth the wait. It’s filled with sparkling dialogue and great voice acting as well as superb animation and a thrilling plot that all combines to make it one of the year’s best films.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/07/15/incredibles-2-review-was-it-worth-the-wait/