Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated American Reunion (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Alot of time has passed since 1999, and in that time there have been a long line of spin off American Pie films, if you don’t count the sequel and American Pie: The Wedding. Of those films only Jim’s Dad (Eugene Levy) has starred in every single one, so it was brilliant to see all the old gang back together again, and how we have missed them all.
The gang is back together – but was it worth it?
Grown up and with adult lives, they head back to where it all began for a high school reunion which of course involves a whole heap of laughter, and there is plenty of that.
Jim and Michelle are now married with a small child and stuck in a rut of a no sex marriage, Oz now a hot shot sports reporter has trouble controlling his high maintenance girlfriend. Kevin is seemingly happy as a house husband and Finch is still very much the enigma of the group, and then of course there’s Stifler, probably the only character not to have changed at all.
There are some outrageous moments, right from the opening scene, even giving a hint of what is going to happen would suck any laughter out of you so for that I am not going to reveal too much. Let’s just say it is once again Jim who pretty much steals the show.
The group start to look at themselves and realise that they are very much all grown up with things never able to be the same again, as Jim harshly points out to Stifler in one scene.
There is through all the hilarity some touching moments, in particularly featuring Jim’s Dad who is getting over the passing of his wife and takes some advice from Jim himself to get back onto the dating horse. This of course results in some more outlandish behaviour at another Stifler party.
The American Pie franchise is very much an icon of teenage angst, at least for those films that matter to us. I doubt anyone would have sat through any of the American Pie Presents films.
American Reunion manages to get the whole cast back together, even if they are only on screen for a brief few minutes its like seeing an old friend once again. It’s almost as if we can resonate with every character and are pleased that their lives have turned out or are going to turn out for the better.
The film climaxes with a killer piece of revenge courtesy of Stifler, one which in the back of our minds we knew was coming and involves a well cast cameo.
It might not be everyone’s chosen comedy of 2012, but its sure as hell going to be up there!
The gang is back together – but was it worth it?
Grown up and with adult lives, they head back to where it all began for a high school reunion which of course involves a whole heap of laughter, and there is plenty of that.
Jim and Michelle are now married with a small child and stuck in a rut of a no sex marriage, Oz now a hot shot sports reporter has trouble controlling his high maintenance girlfriend. Kevin is seemingly happy as a house husband and Finch is still very much the enigma of the group, and then of course there’s Stifler, probably the only character not to have changed at all.
There are some outrageous moments, right from the opening scene, even giving a hint of what is going to happen would suck any laughter out of you so for that I am not going to reveal too much. Let’s just say it is once again Jim who pretty much steals the show.
The group start to look at themselves and realise that they are very much all grown up with things never able to be the same again, as Jim harshly points out to Stifler in one scene.
There is through all the hilarity some touching moments, in particularly featuring Jim’s Dad who is getting over the passing of his wife and takes some advice from Jim himself to get back onto the dating horse. This of course results in some more outlandish behaviour at another Stifler party.
The American Pie franchise is very much an icon of teenage angst, at least for those films that matter to us. I doubt anyone would have sat through any of the American Pie Presents films.
American Reunion manages to get the whole cast back together, even if they are only on screen for a brief few minutes its like seeing an old friend once again. It’s almost as if we can resonate with every character and are pleased that their lives have turned out or are going to turn out for the better.
The film climaxes with a killer piece of revenge courtesy of Stifler, one which in the back of our minds we knew was coming and involves a well cast cameo.
It might not be everyone’s chosen comedy of 2012, but its sure as hell going to be up there!
JT (287 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As an action connoisseur I know what I like. I’m easily pleased and not overly bothered by plot. It doesn’t always have to make sense, and set pieces can be incoherently over the top. This is why Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw is so enjoyable.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
It’s clear to see that out of the franchise’s many characters Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) have been by far the most entertaining. Johnson arrived in Fast & Furious 5 as the agent tasked with capturing Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew, while Statham’s debut was via a mid-credits scene during Fast & Furious 6 which connected to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham. They are not pleased at having to work together in order to locate a deadly virus called ‘Snowflake’. The pair engage in a number of funny put-downs and quips that start to build a love hate relationship. By the end of the film it’s pretty much guaranteed they are going to be back for a sequel.
Fast & Furious is well known for pushing boundaries when it comes to action sequences and this installment continues the trend. From running down a high-rise building to a chase through the streets of London, culminating with a totally bonkers helicopter finale that must be seen to be believed. The fight scenes are well choreographed and slick, all catering to the actor in question, with a vast array of objects at hand to be used as lethal weapons.
Idris Elba‘s Brixton Lore is an admirable villain. With built in cybernetic augmentations he has a spidey sense that is second to none. But he doesn’t get the screen time he deserves and his back story feels rushed. That said, his motorbike has a distinct Transformers feel about it and not surprisingly it emanates a familiar sound during a high speed pursuit.
What carries the film through the odd bump here and there is the chemistry between Johnson and Statham.
As if all of that wasn’t enough, there are a couple of great cameos thrown which actually work quite well [we won’t spoil them]. Helen Mirren pops up as Queenie, the matriarch of the Shaw family and Deckard’s sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) has an integral role to play.
Whatever you might think of the franchise or how tired it has become, there is no getting away from the fact that it has made a shed load of money. Things certainly don’t look like slowing down either, with the release of Fast & Furious 9 due out next year – although it could be minus this dynamic duo.
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!
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Does what it says on the tin
Big action blockbusters probably don’t get much bigger than this, certainly, the budgets don’t. Just ask Gareth Edwards, who is making his second feature (again about monsters) brings to life one of the films most iconic.
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Feb 22, 2020 (Updated Feb 22, 2020)
For the most part, Don't Breathe is a really tight gem of a thriller with some decent horror elements throughout.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
The movie revolves around three thieves - Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette) and Money (Daniel Zovatto) trying to steal themselves enough valuables to be able to move away from their home city of Detroit.
When they hear about a sizable stash of cash hidden in the house of a blind war veteran (Stephen Lang), they get to work on what they assume will be an easy score. Things go rapidly downhill as it becomes apparent that The Blind Man isn't as helpless as they thought, and they become Tangled in a game of cat and mouse as they try to escape with their lives.
Don't Breathe is an incredibly tense film. It's dimly lit set pieces and it's frequently silent atmosphere are hugely effective. Director Fede Alvarez provides continuously great shots throughout (there's an extended sequence around the mid point which takes place in total darkness which is a particular highlight) and utilizes the small set (95% of the film takes place in The Blind Man's house) fantastically.
The cast are pretty good as well. The three thieves are both likable and dislikable at the appropriate moments, and serve their purpose well. Jane Levy is the stand out of the three, playing the role of 'the final girl' with a satisfying mixture of being terrified, vulnerable, and a strong survivalist all at once.
Stephen Lang is the MVP here though. He steals the show as The Blind Man, and manages to portray a genuinely batshit-scary movie monster, well at the same time, being a tragic and sympathetic characters.
This is one of the main strengths if the whole movie actually. Both The Blind Man and the set of thieves are portrayed as characters we should be siding with at one point or another, and then it will flip it over and give us the reverse one point later. The moral compass of who is to root for is in constant flux, and lends the narrative a unique edge.
My main criticism here though is the films final third. After being a stupidly tense thriller and a fight for survival for an hour, Don't Breathe gets a little silly towards it's climax, and downright gratuitous in parts, (the turkey baster to the face ffs!?).
There's not a huge amount of gore in display, so it doesn't quite fall into torture-porn territory, but the vibe is quite similar, and it tarnishes what is otherwise a pretty decent horror.
Overall though, Don't Breathe is worth a watch if you have any passing interest at all in thrillers or horror. With the news of a sequel in the way, I'm excited to see where the story will go.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 18, 2020)
Tangled
I love the american verison of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". And even the Swedish series was good. But i like the american verison better. So what about this film, its dull. It cant live up to the pervious film/series. I give Clarie Foy credit she was good as Lisbeth, but both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara were both excellent as Lisbeth and Clarie was a step down from them. She was the only good part of this film. The plot, the supporting charcters, the twist, the action were all dull and cant live up to the pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
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!
Ross (3284 KP) rated We Ride The Storm in Books
May 18, 2021
Great Asian-inspired twisting, back-stabbing fantasy
'We Ride the Storm' is an epic fantasy book set in an Asian-inspired world, with savage tribes, in-bred empires and age-old family rivalries.
We see the story unfold through the eyes of three characters: a princess of the Kisian empire (who is the step-daughter of the empire, so a princess in name only); an intriguing assassin and a tribal warrior forced into nomadic life. The plot revolves around a building conflict between the empire and its subjects and neighbours, largely driven by the accidental actions of the aforementioned assassin.
The princess is a well-formed character who quickly moves from plotting with her brother to take their family's rightful place at the head of the empire to siding with the crippled cruel emperor, seeking her own place. Her story is straight out of a Disney film, refused her chance to use her martial skills and forced to marry into power as her only contribution to the family's strength.
The nomadic warrior should have been intriguing, given his initial scene where he is cutting the heads off his fallen comrades and enemies, driven by a religious zeal that a person's head must be removed and properly laid to rest to release their soul. However, he quickly became flat and irritating, his zealous nature making him whiny. His story is the most exciting, though, as his tribe is forced into serving the empire (I think) and put aside their traditionally passive nature in order to secure new lands for themselves.
The final PoV character, the assassin, is by far the most original - she has an extra voice in her head (the background still a mystery), a presence who can inhabit corpses, allowing for some interesting escapes and plans. Her role is slightly comedic, dashing from one job to another across the country, often conflicting jobs, in order to try and release herself from the voice in her head.
The story involves a great amount of plotting and double-crossing, some excellent action scenes and a complex, weaving plot. The only downside for me was remembering who was who, who the empire was, their enemies etc, as different names were sometimes given and I found it hard to remember. Also, some major plot points were initially exposed in fairly throw-away style and later passages made no sense without picking up on them (specifically the voice in the assassin's head, but also aspects of the possession and other events which were easy to miss).
A great read and with a sequel already out, a series I will stick with.
I received a free copy from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
We see the story unfold through the eyes of three characters: a princess of the Kisian empire (who is the step-daughter of the empire, so a princess in name only); an intriguing assassin and a tribal warrior forced into nomadic life. The plot revolves around a building conflict between the empire and its subjects and neighbours, largely driven by the accidental actions of the aforementioned assassin.
The princess is a well-formed character who quickly moves from plotting with her brother to take their family's rightful place at the head of the empire to siding with the crippled cruel emperor, seeking her own place. Her story is straight out of a Disney film, refused her chance to use her martial skills and forced to marry into power as her only contribution to the family's strength.
The nomadic warrior should have been intriguing, given his initial scene where he is cutting the heads off his fallen comrades and enemies, driven by a religious zeal that a person's head must be removed and properly laid to rest to release their soul. However, he quickly became flat and irritating, his zealous nature making him whiny. His story is the most exciting, though, as his tribe is forced into serving the empire (I think) and put aside their traditionally passive nature in order to secure new lands for themselves.
The final PoV character, the assassin, is by far the most original - she has an extra voice in her head (the background still a mystery), a presence who can inhabit corpses, allowing for some interesting escapes and plans. Her role is slightly comedic, dashing from one job to another across the country, often conflicting jobs, in order to try and release herself from the voice in her head.
The story involves a great amount of plotting and double-crossing, some excellent action scenes and a complex, weaving plot. The only downside for me was remembering who was who, who the empire was, their enemies etc, as different names were sometimes given and I found it hard to remember. Also, some major plot points were initially exposed in fairly throw-away style and later passages made no sense without picking up on them (specifically the voice in the assassin's head, but also aspects of the possession and other events which were easy to miss).
A great read and with a sequel already out, a series I will stick with.
I received a free copy from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Killers Anonymous (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2021
A killers' support group? Ooooooh, this could be fun.
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
A group of killers come together to talk about their problems on the night a US Senator is assassinated in London. As they introduce themselves a bigger picture starts to unfold.
Spoiler alert (though the score will have given that away), this COULD have been fun.
The beginning of this film holds little to no... anything. I was 11 minutes in and had absolutely no idea what was happening. There seemed to be no story, no personality, nothing that made me want to carry on watching. At 22 minutes in I wrote, "what is even the point of this" in my notes. By the end I still couldn't see the point.
This lack of interest was a serious hindrance, neither of the two main storylines had an impact. I'm sitting here now wondering whether the film was too complicated, or not complicated enough... it genuinely could be either. After having finished the film I'm concerned that there are so many things in it that scream "sequel incoming". Please, no.
Talent was crammed into this film though, you just have to look at the poster for the movie to see that, even some of those not featured you'd recognise from other things. And all of those actors weren't that bad, we know they can act well, so the question is... why are they in this? With this cast, I think it says something when even they couldn't save this film from the lacklustre material.
We're introduced to the characters in the group one at a time, giving us an overview of their backstory... I had lots of feelings about this. Firstly, it reminded me of an imitation Bad Times At The El Royale. But beyond that mild excitement that maybe we were about to see something good it was a mish-mash of lots of different things. The style was all over the place, and that seemed to be a theme throughout.
Single lit characters, merging scenes that are happening in different locations, graphic novel drawing, it has a lot happening. That along with the madness of some of the scenes made everything rather choppy.
I'm genuinely trying to think of things to say, but every point I look at makes me sigh... that sad sort of sign that makes you disappointed. There are no redeeming features to this apart from the idea, which is so sad, a killers' support group has so many possibilities and this is what we got. And I've just seen the estimated budget was $26 million... that seems like a lot.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/01/killers-anonymous-movie-review.html
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Tron Legacy (2010) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok this was actually good which is a bit surprising as there have been a few sequels to older films released over the past few years and they haven't all be great, not that they haven't necessarily been bad but, depending on how they continuing they have been a bit problematic. Either by using now outdated concepts or trying to to match modern political standards and missing the mark, Ghostbusters I'm looking at you. Tron: Legacy goes down the path of of handing the franchise over to the next generation in a similar manner to Bill and Ted Face the Music and I think Tron does it better.
I'll start by saying that Tron: Legacy is not as original or forward thinking as it's predecessor but that is to be expected. The original had Ideas that were slightly before it's time which i talk about in my review of that film. Tron: Legacy can't re do that originality, partly because its a sequel and so is constrained by the world built in the original but also because a lot of the ideas have been used since, we've had the likes of 'The Matrix' and 'Wreck-it Ralph' and so Tron: Legacy seems to concentrate on being a Tron film and nothing more.
The film keeps close to the original by bringing back quite a few things, we have Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprising their roles of Kevin Flynn And Alan Bradley, with Kevin now trapped in the computer world known as the Grid. The light cycles are back as well as few other craft. The effects have been updated but the grid and it's games are still very recognisable and there are a few through back lines and scenes.
Tron: Legacy does feel a bit Matrixy at times, neither of the flynns are Neo but it does draw on the familiar God/Devil tropes that you often see. The costumes are more cyber punk than the original, still using the red/blue lighting but also being more PVC and trench coat in its aesthetic with many characters supporting visors or crash helmets, to the point that Daft Punk actually look like they belong there.
Like a lot of Cyberpunk films there is a night club and this has one of the films stand out characters, Castor, played by Michael Sheen who is doing his best 'Ziggy Stardust' impression.
The strange thing is, this is a good film, with good franchise potential and Disney don't seem to have marketed it well, it's 10 years old (at the time of writing) and isn't mentioned much and it's only due to watching this on Disney+ that I now know about the spin off animated series, Tron: Uprising, which I'm going to have to watch.
I'll start by saying that Tron: Legacy is not as original or forward thinking as it's predecessor but that is to be expected. The original had Ideas that were slightly before it's time which i talk about in my review of that film. Tron: Legacy can't re do that originality, partly because its a sequel and so is constrained by the world built in the original but also because a lot of the ideas have been used since, we've had the likes of 'The Matrix' and 'Wreck-it Ralph' and so Tron: Legacy seems to concentrate on being a Tron film and nothing more.
The film keeps close to the original by bringing back quite a few things, we have Jeff Bridges and Bruce Boxleitner reprising their roles of Kevin Flynn And Alan Bradley, with Kevin now trapped in the computer world known as the Grid. The light cycles are back as well as few other craft. The effects have been updated but the grid and it's games are still very recognisable and there are a few through back lines and scenes.
Tron: Legacy does feel a bit Matrixy at times, neither of the flynns are Neo but it does draw on the familiar God/Devil tropes that you often see. The costumes are more cyber punk than the original, still using the red/blue lighting but also being more PVC and trench coat in its aesthetic with many characters supporting visors or crash helmets, to the point that Daft Punk actually look like they belong there.
Like a lot of Cyberpunk films there is a night club and this has one of the films stand out characters, Castor, played by Michael Sheen who is doing his best 'Ziggy Stardust' impression.
The strange thing is, this is a good film, with good franchise potential and Disney don't seem to have marketed it well, it's 10 years old (at the time of writing) and isn't mentioned much and it's only due to watching this on Disney+ that I now know about the spin off animated series, Tron: Uprising, which I'm going to have to watch.