Search
Kindergarten math & reading learning kids games
Education and Games
App
Now with free printable worksheets, Money Monsters and new fun videos! +++++ Featured by The...
Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Rise and Fall
7.9
Rate It
Video Game Watch
Civilization VI is a game about building an empire to stand the test of time, and the Rise and Fall...
4X Strategy Turn-Based
Silent Landscape at Gallipoli: The Battlefields of the Dardanelles, One Hundred Years on
Book
In our first book, we explored the impact of the fighting on the landscape of the Western Front -...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Green Book (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It's always nice getting advanced screenings, but two months in advance has to be some sort of record. By the fact that the entire audience went "what?!" when the title card came up it was a very well kept secret screening.
I'm so pleased that this played to a packed screen. We lost maybe a dozen people within the first five minutes, which I think just goes to show how much of an unknown it was because normally people will leave immediately. I had seen it on the app, but not read the synopsis or seen a trailer so it was brilliant to be able to go into the film without any prejudgment.
Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen make a wonderful duo. They bounce of each other really well throughout the whole film.
One of the things I was dying to know was who was playing the piano. I'm reliably informed by IMDb's trivia that Kris Bowers who is the film's composer is Ali's piano double. I have no idea how they do that considering that a fair amount of the shots show Ali playing. It was certainly well done.
The film shows yet another important story in a well thought out and sensitive way. Hidden Figures, Marshall and now Green Book. We're seeing sides of history that we hardly knew of before. The Green Book was a complete shock of a discovery to me and this certainly made me want to research more on the topic.
Ultimately this story is about friendship and acceptance in the face of adversity. It's good to see the circle of change in Tony, and the ending paints the hopeful picture of what would unfold in the future.
I feel a little bit harsh only giving this four and a half stars. While Mortensen and Cardellini were spot on, Ali left me a little disappointed. I have loved him ever since The 4400 and it's been great seeing him in so many shows and films since then. This role obviously has some very powerful moments, and while he delivered them with grace I couldn't help noticing that something was missing. There was one point where he delivers a poignant speech to Tony and I realised that is was lacking the emotional kicker. It felt detached. Whether it was script, acting or just the natural way of the character I'm not sure, it had the potential to bring me to tears and yet... dry eyes.
That is honestly the only glitch in this wonderful film. I got home and I couldn't sleep because I was still buzzing from the screening. (I'm paying for that now.) I read the comments on Twitter and I was really struck by how many people loved it. This deserves to win awards on a lot of counts, I just hope that it gets the recognition it deserves.
When I got my Unlimited card I wasn't convinced that I'd go and see a lot of films (yes I know, what a joke!), and certainly without the card I would never have seen this. At home I never used to pick films that I'd have to "think about". Unlimited has changed the way I watch movies and given me the opportunity to see incredible productions like this. That to me is well worth the money.
What you should do
You should absolutely see this. Not quite a child friendly as Hidden Figures was but it offers another great insight into the past.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a fraction of that musical talent would be incredible.
I'm so pleased that this played to a packed screen. We lost maybe a dozen people within the first five minutes, which I think just goes to show how much of an unknown it was because normally people will leave immediately. I had seen it on the app, but not read the synopsis or seen a trailer so it was brilliant to be able to go into the film without any prejudgment.
Mahershala Ali and Viggo Mortensen make a wonderful duo. They bounce of each other really well throughout the whole film.
One of the things I was dying to know was who was playing the piano. I'm reliably informed by IMDb's trivia that Kris Bowers who is the film's composer is Ali's piano double. I have no idea how they do that considering that a fair amount of the shots show Ali playing. It was certainly well done.
The film shows yet another important story in a well thought out and sensitive way. Hidden Figures, Marshall and now Green Book. We're seeing sides of history that we hardly knew of before. The Green Book was a complete shock of a discovery to me and this certainly made me want to research more on the topic.
Ultimately this story is about friendship and acceptance in the face of adversity. It's good to see the circle of change in Tony, and the ending paints the hopeful picture of what would unfold in the future.
I feel a little bit harsh only giving this four and a half stars. While Mortensen and Cardellini were spot on, Ali left me a little disappointed. I have loved him ever since The 4400 and it's been great seeing him in so many shows and films since then. This role obviously has some very powerful moments, and while he delivered them with grace I couldn't help noticing that something was missing. There was one point where he delivers a poignant speech to Tony and I realised that is was lacking the emotional kicker. It felt detached. Whether it was script, acting or just the natural way of the character I'm not sure, it had the potential to bring me to tears and yet... dry eyes.
That is honestly the only glitch in this wonderful film. I got home and I couldn't sleep because I was still buzzing from the screening. (I'm paying for that now.) I read the comments on Twitter and I was really struck by how many people loved it. This deserves to win awards on a lot of counts, I just hope that it gets the recognition it deserves.
When I got my Unlimited card I wasn't convinced that I'd go and see a lot of films (yes I know, what a joke!), and certainly without the card I would never have seen this. At home I never used to pick films that I'd have to "think about". Unlimited has changed the way I watch movies and given me the opportunity to see incredible productions like this. That to me is well worth the money.
What you should do
You should absolutely see this. Not quite a child friendly as Hidden Figures was but it offers another great insight into the past.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Just a fraction of that musical talent would be incredible.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
The tragedy. The comedy. The pornography.
Not many filmmakers can say they won two Oscars and for Best Director in two different decades and were nominated a third time in a different decade. The recently deceased movie maestro Milos Forman is one that could.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
This time he decides to take on a subject he is passionate about through the lens of someone he doesn't particularly like. It is hard to believe the real Larry Flynt became a poster child for free speech and freedom of expression just so he could peddle Hustler magazine which showed every variety of "smut", "vile" and immoral behavior and imagery which makes most people disgusted. They even featured a cartoon depicting the characters from "The Wizard of Oz" getting it on with each other!
Larry Flynt started with his brother managing a strip club, but dreaming for something more. Larry decided he would publish a "newsletter" to increase awareness of the club. Upon publication, people became interested in viewing and subscribing to its controversial content, thus an empire was born.
From this club Larry also met his latest dancer soon to be wife, Althea.
The hits started coming almost immediately with different groups causing trouble for Larry and having him arrested. His legal battles soon began as well. His lawyer is not able to control his increasingly belligerent client who shows no respect for the court and openly mocked and disrespected it. Unfortunately, after one of his court appearances, he and his lawyer were shot by a sniper leaving Larry paralyzed from the waist down.
Larry didn't let up; however, deciding instead to take on Reverend Jerry Falwell in Hustler which would ultimately end up with his case being seen at the US Supreme Court.
No stranger to telling a keen biography (Amadeus ranks among the greatest biopics in movie history), director Forman manages to fashion a true tale with such fervor and passion, you get drawn in almost immediately. Even if you hate Larry's message and attitude, you must ultimately completely agree with his right to express it.
Woody Harrelson began getting noticed as a dramatic actor in 1994 with Natural Born Killers and continues to this day including blockbusters like Solo and The Hunger Games franchise as well as meaningful dramatic roles in recent films like Three Billboards and Game Change, Hard to believe the numskull from Cheers has blossomed into a full fledged movie star. His Academy Award nominated performance in this film is so well deserved. He is able to make Larry Flynt repulsive and sympathetic, rude and adorable as well as repugnant and charming all at the same time.
Courtney Love comes form nowhere and plays Larry's wife Althea with energy and really give it her all showing herself as the woman who would stand by her husband no matter what and up against the system. An early performance from Edward Norton is also welcome coming right on the heels of his breakout role in Primal Fear.
The courtroom scenes and not revolutionary, however, the drama and intensity are there broken up by Larry's quips and infant like behavior.
A very entertaining watch from a true master filmmaker highly recommended.
Earthquake+ | Alert,Map & Info
Weather and News
App
Custom Alerts and Custom Filter are now available FREE of charge!!! •••• More than 50,000...
Jordan Binkerd (567 KP) rated The Long Earth in Books
Aug 13, 2019
Note: this review is transposted from my personal review blog, and so was originally written several years ago. I figured if I reposted it here, someone might actually read it….
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
I’m a huge fan of Terry Pratchett’s work, in case you hadn’t noticed. I’m slowly working my way through his Discworld novels and Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Predictions of Agnes Nutter, Witch, cowritten with Neil Gaiman, is among my favorite books of all time.* So when I discovered The Long Earth at my local library, I was ecstatic. I’d heard good things about Stephen Baxter, but never actually read any of his material. What I found was one of the best novels I have read in a very long time.
The premise here is that there are infinite worlds parallel to ours, spread out across the vast “contingency tree” of possible Earths, and in all of the Long Earth only one iteration has developed Human life–ours. Throughout our history there have always been a few with the natural ability to “step” between worlds at will, and still others who did so unintentionally and disappeared forever, but the world at large was unaware of this phenomenon until a reclusive scientist posted the blueprint for a “stepper” device on the internet and promptly disappeared from his apartment. Suddenly, the whole of the Long Earth is opened up to humanity. Suddenly, there is no shortage of land or resources. Economies are hard hit, jobs are lost, and once again humanity’s pioneer spirit is stirred to go out into the frontier and try to make their way….
Joshua Valiente is a so-called “natural stepper,” but he is probably unique among humanity. In the stress of childbirth, his mother stepped out of her world and into a parallel forest before slipping back without him. She managed to get back and recover him pretty quickly, but nevertheless young Joshua spent the first ten minutes or so of his life completely alone in his universe. As a result, he is uniquely attuned to the Long Earth. He can step between worlds without nausea, and is keenly sensitive to the number of people around, growing intensely uncomfortable the more crowded things get. Now, fifteen years after the world learned of the Long Earth, he spends most of his time exploring where no man has gone before. Lobsang, on the other hand, is a keenly intelligent AI, who may or may not be the latest reincarnation of a Tibetan motorcycle repairman. In collaboration with the shadowy Black Corporation, Lobsang has conceived a plan to test just how far the Long Earth goes. And he wants Joshua to go with him….the resulting journey is as much an exploration of what may have been as it is a geographical one, with most worlds mirroring our own, but a few display the effects of a cosmic “toss of a coin” going the other way–for example, there’s one where the Earth was completely destroyed by an asteroid strike sometime in the distant past.
Put quite plainly, this was the best thing I’ve read in a very long time. Very original, and to my (admittedly limited) understanding very faithful to the relevant science without losing quality of narrative or character. Pratchett’s humor and sardonic narrative voice shines through quite often in the interpersonal or introspective moments as well as those detailing more plot driven points–those scenes that would, in a film, become some form of montage showing that time is passing and this is what’s happening in the meantime. As I mentioned, I’ve never read Baxter before, so it’s harder to pick out his voice from their collaboration.
Infodumping has become something of a cardinal sin in the science fiction world, but sometimes you just have to throw some information at the reader so that he doesn’t get lost. I felt that The Long Earth handled that very well. We get our first glimpse at the long earth in montage mode, a series of vignettes that don’t make sense on their own, people popping in and out of worlds without understanding themselves what is going on. This is followed by the main story, twenty years after the discovery of the Long Earth, in which the bare bones are presented via a TV interview a character is half-watching while he waits. These bare bones of the conceptual basis of the book are then fleshed out in more detail as Joshua and Lobsang and introduced and get to know each other, discussing the various theories regarding the Long Earth at length in an effort to better understand it themselves. This is interspersed with flashbacks, sometimes Joshua recalling his experiences, sometimes Lobsang telling stories of other people based on his research into early encounters with the Long Earth. In this way Pratchett and Baxter manage to convey how humanity as a whole is dealing, not just Joshua and Lobsang. If I have one complaint with this it is not always clear why or how we are being told this–you don’t discover until the end of the chapter that Lobsang is telling this to Joshua instead of the authors just throwing in a tangential bit with no direct connection. And it is all connected–every revelation, every character you visit and then abandon early in the book will come back and have significance later on.
This is perhaps not the easiest read–you do have to engage it to understand it properly–but neither is it an incomprehensible enigma. As long as you pay attention you should be fine.
CONTENT: Some R-rated language, but not nearly what you could find elsewhere. Some violence, some grisly aftermath of violence. Sexual references, but nothing explicit.
*I’m frankly a little surprised I don’t have a review of that one up here, I must have reread it last just before I started doing this. I’ll have to fix that in the near future….
Original post: https://jordanbinkerd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/review-the-long-earth-by-terry-pratchett-stephen-baxter/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
The final curtain.
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
So… thanks again to work and family commitments, I’ve spent 7 days dodging social media to arrive at my showing of “Endgame” spoiler free… and was successful in doing so! It is of course impossible to write just about anything on this film without dropping spoilers. So I will keep this first part of the review short, but add some footnotes (indexed with <#> symbols) to a “spoiler section” below the trailer video. Proceed at your peril if you haven’t yet seen it!
The Plot
The MCU has delivered an impressively well-connected movie series. In the case of Thanos, this is a story-arc that started in the mid-credit “monkey” at the end of 2012’s “The Avengers” and, at the conclusion of “Avengers: Infinity War”, saw half the universe’s population drift away – Voldemort-style – into grey ash. This, of course, also wiped out half of our heroes (good trivia question for future years: who was the first we saw drift away? Answer below* ). This included Spider-Man (Tom Holland); Dr Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch); Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman); Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson); half of the remaining Guardians; The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr Pym (Michael Douglas). Oblivious to all of this is Ant Man (Paul Rudd), still stranded in the ‘quantum realm’ following the demise of his colleagues, and with no one to flick the ‘return’ switch.
After some early action, Endgame’s story revolves around a desperate attempt by the remaining Avengers, led by Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and a ‘retired’ Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jnr) to undo the undoable. Can they succeed against all the odds? (With a new Spider-Man film due out in the summer, I’ll give you a guess!). Of more relevance perhaps is whether the team can stay unscathed from their encounter with the scheming and massively powerful Thanos (Josh Brolin)?
Thoughtful
The film will not be to every fan’s taste. After the virtually non-stop rip-roaring action of “Infinity War”, “Endgame” takes a far more contemplative approach to its first hour.
The film starts with a devastating prologue, and a great lesson in statistics: that you need a decent sized population to guarantee getting a 50:50 split! There is also a very surprising twist in the first 15 minutes or so that I didn’t see coming AT ALL.
But then things settle down into a far more sombre section of the film: short on action; long on character development. The world is grieving for its loss, unable to move on past the non-stop counselling sessions that everyone is getting. This first hour was, for me, by far, my favourite part of the film. Seeing how the characters we know and love have been impacted – some for better rather than for worse – was terrific. Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk (with a rather glib plot-point) takes on an hilarious new aspect; and Chris Hemsworth adds hugely comedic value as Thor, setting up in Scotland a “New Asgard” settlement in uncharacteristically laid-back fashion.
Cast
As an ensemble cast, everyone plays their parts extremely well. But it is just the breadth of the cast that astounds in this film: just about everyone who is anyone in the Marvel Universe – at least, those who are still alive (alive!) and not dead (dead!) – pop up for an appearance! This is great fun with, in one particular case, the opportunity to try some more rejuvenation of an old timer as previously done with Samuel L. Jackson in “Captain Marvel”.
Inevitably, some of these appearances are overly brief, and characters that I wanted to see developed more in this film (particularly Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel) get very little screen time. Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) barely get a single line each. So it will depend on where your loyalties lie as to whether you are satisfied with the coverage or not. (I personally find Chris Evans‘ Captain America a bit of a po-faced bore, so I wasn’t keen on the amount of screen time he had).
Stan Lee again gets another cameo in the bag before his demise: will this actually be his last live one?
Overall view
I enjoyed this movie. It could obviously NEVER live up to the over-hyped expectations of the fan base. But as a cinematic spectacle, for me, it delivered on its billing as a blockbuster finale, but one filled with a degree of nuance I was not expecting. The problem with the way that the plot have been structured (no spoilers – <#>) is that it is easy to pick holes in the storyline. Indeed, some dramatic options (that to me seemed obvious ones to ‘mine’) were left ‘unmined’ <##>; others were left inexplicably hanging <###>.
I suspect the reason for some of this is that the initial cut of this film probably ran to 5 hours rather than the – still bladder-testing – 3 hours as released. There were probably a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor that might allow things to make more sense in the extended BluRay release.
It’s at times slow, but for me never dull. It does suffer from one significant flaw though: the “Return of the King” disease. It doesn’t know when to quit. There was a natural MCU arc to follow and a perfect time at which to end it: but the directors (the Russo Brothers, Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) kept adding additional scenes that detracted from the natural ending <####>.
Above all, unlike I think all but one film in MCU history, there is NO “MONKEY” in the end credits: either mid-credit or end-credit! So, after the long title crawl (and some rather odd choices for end-title music by Alan Silvestri), if you are not to look bloody stupid as the lights come up, and face a storm of derision from your partner, then leave after the dramatic roll-call sequence of the film’s stars!
(*BTW, the answer to the trivia question is, I believe, Bucky.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Firstly I'd like to address the accuracy of this film. As soon as I got out of the screening I looked up the story and it took the shine off a little. James Glaisher was indeed involved in these experiments but his companion was Henry Coxwell and not the fictional Amelia Wren. Wren is at least based on female aeronauts of the time, Sophie Blanchard and Margaret Graham, which is a slight comfort. I can of course understand why they did it, the film has a definite air of romance about it and the inclusion of a larger than life character and her backstory does give the film a boost that it might not have had on the original story.
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
May 18, 2019
"I can save today, you can save the world"
Remember when some trickster claiming to be a former worker from Warner Bros. wrote an open letter saying that Wonder Woman was just another mess of a DC movie, et cetera? I remember how Patty Jenkins responded to that. She tweeted: "Just wait and you'll see".
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone could even consider that there was the slightest chance of this movie not being good, and I'm gonna tell you why: this is the very first big female-led superhero movie, in which the title character also happens to be the greatest female superhero in history. If you really think that Patty Jenkins, also the first woman to ever direct a superhero movie of this caliber in a industry where women barely stand any chances to get to direct major blockbusters, would let this movie be anything less than great... You've got another thing coming, mate.
Wonder Woman is a traditional, oldschool superhero movie, but the first essentially feminist one at it, and they couldn't have chosen a better setting to tell this story, or a better character to star in it. The movie's social comments are strong and constantly present, but never forced, because it is only natural: by placing Diana, a princess raised in an island of warrior women, in the middle of the reality of World War I, the absurdities of the feminine role in the world - and so many other human corruptions - automatically come to light. The way Diana reacts to this world raises a great sense of awareness, with a touch of poignant humor to it. There is a very funny subtle arc of her wanting to take out her cloak, but not being able to because her armor is "barely any clothes", hinting not only at society's sexist feminine dressing code - which is still a thing today -, but also gradually adding power to the iconography of Wonder Woman in full costume; this is Wonder Woman's much awaited debut on the big screen in a solo movie, and like Superman and Batman before her, her first appearance needed to be something incredibly striking. Patty knew that, Gal knew that, and they made it happen. Even if we already saw her in BVS, the very first time Wonder Woman walks up in full costume here is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in superhero cinema.
Jenkins is extremely devoted to giving Wonder Woman the iconic debut film she deserves, and she nails it - there's quite a bit of remarkable shots and set pieces that let out the same imagetic power as in Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman or even Raimi's Spider-Man, and I must highlight the No Man's Land sequence. It's my favorite part of the movie; Jenkins and Heinberg carefully work on Diana's mindset as she first witness the horrors of human war, not being able to help everyone, horses being hurt so they can move faster, a mother and a child begging for help, and it all leads up to the powerful moment of a woman crossing the land no man could cross - and Heinberg's dialogue doesn't rely on obvious statements such as "fortunately I'm a woman" (I'm looking at you, Batwoman trailer), it simply lets the image strike us, because it is powerful enough by itself, and boy did that cause some serious goosebumps.
Speaking of dialogue... It's so terrific, so well written. The exchanges between Diana and Steve Trevor are very clever and funny, but most of all natural. All the characters are also extremely likable; Allan Heinberg's writing knows that not all of them can be given deep development, but nonetheless he gives them stories, personalities and purposes, and that - plus the charismatic performances - makes them very empathetic. The villains are not as remarkable as in some of the other DCEU films, but they didn't need to be; the movie doesn't require in-depth arcs from its villains. They have a strong presence when they're in scene and a well elaborated lore, and that's everything they need.
Contrary to the Nordic mythology depicted in the MCU, here we are talking about real gods, true deities, not superpowerful aliens that only strike a similar image - and that also brings a few narrative dangers along with it, after all, it was in greek mythological stories that the concept of Deus Ex Machina first appeared. Heinberg's screenplay, though, makes a few clever twists in that mythology to avoid easy solutions, which adds to the storytelling, the world building and the developing of the themes as well. The lore surrounding the God of War Ares, for example, is not a simple Diabolus Ex Machina as "he influences men to war and if you kill him every man goes back to being good and everything's alright", no, it's more narratively complicated and socially engaging than that.
And Gal Gadot... I'm at a loss for words. I'll confess right here that when she was first announced as Wonder Woman, I was one of the few who were very opposed to that casting. I've never been so wrong in my life, and I've never been so happy about it. She really is Wonder Woman. She's so graceful and adorable, but a major badass when she needs to be. The way she moves, the way she curiously looks at things, the way she speaks, and the way she incarnates Diana's evolving from her naive beginnings to the wise warrior... She's not only an icon, she's a true hero. Comparisons to Christopher Reeve's Superman were made for good reasons.
Chris Pine is also great, he walks perfectly in the line between funny and serious, Steve Trevor is a darling character and his chemistry with Gal is on point. Their relationship is very well constructed and becomes highly emotional by the end - there are scenes that filled my heart with joy, and others that made it ache.
The action is exciting and full of originality, and I like how Jenkins uses slow-motion differently than Zack Snyder. I know that Snyder helped her direct some of the action sequences, which is understandable since Jenkins had no experience with this type of movie, but you can tell it's not the same. In the fights themselves, there's this feel of sensibility to how these people react to Diana, and it's slightly different from the typical "regular people react to superhumans among them" trope. The cinematography is very keen on portraying the difference between Themyscira - an island of colors and natural beauty - and "jolly ol' London" - desaturated and smoggy, a scenario in which Diana's colorful armor shines in a most beautiful contrast.
And the soundtrack. Rupert Gregson-Williams made a beautiful score that brings out the best in every scene. It's heroic, very heartfelt, and loyal to the foundations of what makes superhero music so memorable. Gregson-Williams adds new themes to compose Wonder Woman's musical identity, but Hans Zimmer's main theme from BVS still lives, and it plays in some heart-pounding scenes. I love that they're dedicating that much attention to the musical continuity, because amongst Marvel's many qualities, they're doing a lousy job in that area. Wonder Woman's theme is the most catchy superhero theme in a long time, it quickly gained a lot of appreciation and by continuing on using it, Gregson-Williams collaborates to making Wonder Woman the strong cinematic icon she's setting out to be.
The irregular reception of previous DCEU movies also extols the impact of Wonder Woman, as do the distinct styles between the films. One of the DCEU's biggest virtues is that singularity of each film; be it a near disaster movie epic such as Man Of Steel, a complex deconstruction of heroic values such as Batman v Superman, an stylish chaos such as Suicide Squad or a traditional, graceful superhero film such as Wonder Woman, these movies are all in the same universe, and that very fact is an example of its richness. A lot of people will think Wonder Woman is the best DCEU movie of the lot, some will stick to BVS, others to MOS, maybe for some it's Shazam, but that's the fun of it: we can discuss this forever. Each of these movies mean different things to different people, we're way past simply labelling one as "better" and the other as "worse".
Wonder Woman, however, is not simply a movie about a very strong woman. It's an achievement for every woman. There were tons of girls dressed up as Wonder Woman in the theater, and just seeing how ecstatic they were after the movie brought me joy. There were tons of applause. It's a mark. Be that as it may, Wonder Woman will be remembered as the most impactful superhero film of its time. In 1978, Superman showed to the world how a man could fly; in 2017, Wonder Woman showed to the world how a woman can fight.