Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
Jul 21, 2020
The first Thor film gets a bad wrap, and I think it's due to a combination of people forgetting just how good it is, and it perhaps being tarnished by it's underwhelming sequel, when in reality, Thor marks Marvel Studios first steps into more cosmic territory, a realm that was once deemed a little too silly for the general public, and pulls it off in style.
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Firstly, translating the many characters of the Thor comic series is no easy feat. They all talk in a Shakespearean dialect, and have ridiculous costumes. The script though is fantastic. The Asgardian characters are still very bombastic, but when mixed with humans from Earth, it's becomes naturally comical. It doesn't feel corny, and somehow, it works very well.
As for the costumes, everyone just looks badass truth be told so hats off to the costume department.
Chris Hemsworth is the embodiment of Thor, and it's truly difficult to see anyone else in the role. He's charming, funny, and has just the right amount of god-like angst, and it's easy to see why he's become a firm favourite as the MCU has continued to expand.
The same goes for Tom Hiddleston as Loki. His portrayal of the God of Mischief is equal parts sinister, slimy, and sympathetic. He's the villain that you can't help but love and it's a testament to his performance that Loki has remained a mainstay in the MCU, a franchise that is often guilty of the one-and-done method when it comes to villains.
The cast is rounded out by a stellar lineup, including Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Rene Russo, Jaime Alexander, Stellan Skaragård, Idris Elba and even includes a bigger role for the always excellent Clark Gregg. This film also serves as the introduction of Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, another MCU staple. It's a strong cast list without a doubt.
The action set pieces are all pretty fun, and the effects still just about hold up. I'd argue that Thor looks better than the first two Iron Man films in that respect. Asgard looks great as well.
Another thing I absolutely LOVE about Thor is the music score by Patrick Doyle. In terms of original orchestral music, it's probably by favourite within the MCU (possibly on par with Infinity War and Endgame) but it's fantastic, and gives me goosebumps every damn time I watch this movie
Thor is action packed, with a fantastic script and score, and a great cast with well fleshed out characters. Bringing Kenneth Branagh on board as director was a great choice, and overall, the film deserves way more love than it gets.
Ignoring the first Avengers movie, Thor is the crown jewel of phase one!
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Re-Animator (1985) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
Jeffrey Combs (2 more)
Bruce Abbott
Stuart Gordan
Mad Man
Re-Animator- is frankenstien. But alot more gorer. So much gory, so much viloence, so much horror. Its different than frankenstein, but has a lot in common.
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
The plot: Loosely based on H P Lovecraft's classic horror tale, Herbert West is a young scientist who has a good head on his shoulders and another on the lab table in front of him.
Originally devised by Gordon as a theatrical stage production and later a half-hour television pilot, the television script was revised to become a feature film.
The film originally received an X rating, and was later edited to obtain an R rating for video rental stores.
The idea to make Re-Animator came from a discussion Stuart Gordon had with friends one night about vampire films. He felt that there were too many Dracula films and expressed a desire to see a Frankenstein film. Someone asked if he had read "Herbert West–Reanimator" by H. P. Lovecraft.
Originally, Gordon was going to adapt Lovecraft's story for the stage, but eventually decided along with writers Dennis Paoli and William Norris to make it as a half-hour television pilot. The story was set around the turn of the century, and they soon realized that it would be too expensive to recreate. They updated it to the present day in Chicago with the intention of using actors from the Organic Theater company. They were told that the half hour format was not salable and so they made it an hour, writing 13 episodes. Special effects technician Bob Greenberg, who had worked on John Carpenter's Dark Star, repeatedly told Gordon that the only market for horror was in feature films, and introduced him to producer Brian Yuzna. Gordon showed Yuzna the script for the pilot and the 12 additional episodes.
Yuzna described the film as having the "sort of shock sensibility of an Evil Dead with the production values of, hopefully, The Howling."
Naulin said that Re-Animator was the bloodiest film he had ever worked on. In the past, he had never used more than two gallons of blood on a film; on Re-Animator, he used 24 gallons.
The biggest makeup challenge in the film was the headless Dr. Hill zombie. Tony Doublin designed the mechanical effects and was faced with the problem of proportion once the 9–10 inches of the head were removed from the body. Each scene forced him to use a different technique. For example, one technique involved building an upper torso that actor David Gale could bend over and stick his head through so that it appeared to be the one that the walking corpse was carrying around.
Its excellent gory film
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Matt Damon - solid central performance (1 more)
Intelligent script
Life is Brutal
Positives:
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Prof. Hornet - Easy Autocue
Productivity and Business
App
Perfect for any situation: Youtube videos, business or school presentations, video journalism, video...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
John Garrett (27 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2017
Tom Holland (2 more)
The villain (thank god)
The script
No real stakes (1 more)
Not enough fighting scenes
Spiderman has never been better
Contains spoilers, click to show
Tom Holland is fantastic. Never has writing a review been so releaving. After the car wrecks that were the first 2 amazing Spiderman movies we finally get a great depiction of the friendly neighbourhood Spiderman. Tom played both the quick witted Spiderman and nerdy Peter Parker fantastically and actually looks like a high school kid.
Michael Keaton plays another winged comic book character in the vulture who unlike other marvel villains added some gravitas and was not just a throw away. He played almost a sympathetic villain where you understand his motivations.
The story was solid. We actually got to see a teenage Peter Parker with teenage worries in high school rather than trying to skip over his school life quickly in other iterations of the character. His high school sidekick Ned was a great comic relief and in my opinion created most of the laughs in this film.
One major worry going in was that iron man would steel the show. Luckily Robert Downey Jr was used almost sparingly and was there in just a mentoring capacity which was good to see.
Overall this was a funny, charming story with a great portrayal of one of the world's most loved characters.
Michael Keaton plays another winged comic book character in the vulture who unlike other marvel villains added some gravitas and was not just a throw away. He played almost a sympathetic villain where you understand his motivations.
The story was solid. We actually got to see a teenage Peter Parker with teenage worries in high school rather than trying to skip over his school life quickly in other iterations of the character. His high school sidekick Ned was a great comic relief and in my opinion created most of the laughs in this film.
One major worry going in was that iron man would steel the show. Luckily Robert Downey Jr was used almost sparingly and was there in just a mentoring capacity which was good to see.
Overall this was a funny, charming story with a great portrayal of one of the world's most loved characters.
tonidavis (353 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
Aug 25, 2017
If you like the Anime save yourself don't watch! (5 more)
Ruined entire premise of light
Ruined L
Bad writing
What's with this teen angst
With seriously never been so angry
I'm used to Hollywood ruinning Japanese anime by now. However this is possibly the worst anime film adaption ever.
Anime/magna Light is a genius who at the start truly does what he believes is right and just and later power turns him mad, into a genius on power who clever enough to manipulate a good of death. What does this film give us a whingey teenage angst ridden pathetic human being who in love with the cliche of cliche cheerleader.
Don't get me started with the cheerleader
L anime and manga is a genius who has beyond increble presence power and essence not to mention his stance and love of cake is notorious that makes you love him more. This L is just bad and that giving him credit.
William Dafoe plays the voice of Ryuk which isn't enough to do anything for this film unfortunately because I do love William Dafoe and no one plays villain like him but the writing and general Hollywood let see if we can make generic cash cow by using popular teen actors rather than getting decent script writer or following any semblance of plot has ruined this movie
Anime/magna Light is a genius who at the start truly does what he believes is right and just and later power turns him mad, into a genius on power who clever enough to manipulate a good of death. What does this film give us a whingey teenage angst ridden pathetic human being who in love with the cliche of cliche cheerleader.
Don't get me started with the cheerleader
L anime and manga is a genius who has beyond increble presence power and essence not to mention his stance and love of cake is notorious that makes you love him more. This L is just bad and that giving him credit.
William Dafoe plays the voice of Ryuk which isn't enough to do anything for this film unfortunately because I do love William Dafoe and no one plays villain like him but the writing and general Hollywood let see if we can make generic cash cow by using popular teen actors rather than getting decent script writer or following any semblance of plot has ruined this movie
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Transformers: The Last Knight (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2018
Hopefully the last ever Transformers film
Let's be honest, the Transformers films seem to have a Marmite-like love/hate appeal. With the exception of the first film which was actually quite good, the rest of the sequels have been pretty dire. Age of Extinction wasn't too bad as at least it rebooted the franchise with a mostly new cast. But sadly the same cant be said of The Last Knight.
Firstly, the plot. This is just bat s*** crazy nonsense, like they've dredged the depths for something to link Transformers to and somehow have come up with the legend of Merlin and King Arthur. Seriously? This starts off pretty silly and by the end of the film descends into complete ridiculousness. The script is so cheesy, they've thrown far too many pointless characters in and the CGI in places actually looks quite poor. This gets a few points by being able to hold my attention for the overly long running time, mainly on the basis that I wanted to see how bad it was going to get.
Considering the ending its looking doubtful that this will be the last Transformers film ever, but I really hope it is. I'm not counting the prequel type Bumblebee film but I don't hold out much hope for that either...
Firstly, the plot. This is just bat s*** crazy nonsense, like they've dredged the depths for something to link Transformers to and somehow have come up with the legend of Merlin and King Arthur. Seriously? This starts off pretty silly and by the end of the film descends into complete ridiculousness. The script is so cheesy, they've thrown far too many pointless characters in and the CGI in places actually looks quite poor. This gets a few points by being able to hold my attention for the overly long running time, mainly on the basis that I wanted to see how bad it was going to get.
Considering the ending its looking doubtful that this will be the last Transformers film ever, but I really hope it is. I'm not counting the prequel type Bumblebee film but I don't hold out much hope for that either...
