Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Mar 30, 2021
The Last 45 minutes (out of 4 hours) is decent
When Zach Snyder was filming JUSTICE LEAGUE in 2016, a tragedy occurred in his family and he was forced to drop out and the job of Directing that film went to Joss Whedon (THE AVENGERS). This version of the film was met by many (including me) with a collective “meh”, it was an unintelligible mess of a movie that paid lip service to fan boys (maybe) and gave very little to anyone not well versed in all things DC Comics. Many, many fans assumed that there was much left on the cutting room floor (or not filmed at all) that would correct the many mistakes of this film.
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
After a large outcry to “Restore The Snyder Cut”, Warner Brothers and HBO Max gave the fans what they wanted - a 4 hour redone version of this film that was intended to clear up the many, many confusing moments of the first film.
And that is EXACTLY what has happened. Zach Snyder has created a film that is very long on explanation and exposition - exactly what the fanboys wanted. What it didn’t do was to clear up the mess that is the plot, pacing and characters of this film.
ZACH SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE unites many of the great SuperHeroes of DC Comics - Superman (Henry Cavill), Batman (Ben Affleck), Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), The Flash (Ezra Miller) and Cyborg (Ray Fisher) - to fight an intergalactic villain.
So..how many of those heroes are you anxious to see on screen together and really dive deep into their backstories and motivations? If you said The Flash and Cyborg - then this is the film for you for Snyder really delves deeply into these 2 characters.
Unfortunately, what this has done is to push the heroes that the “average Joe” knows and loves - Batman, WonderWoman and Aquaman - to the background and, most damning of all, relinquished Superman to an extended cameo. He also throws almost every DC Character that has appeared in a previous film in - most really quickly. So, thanks for stopping by the party Lois Lane (Amy Adams), Commissioner Gordon (J.K. Simmons), Vulko (Willem Dafoe), Lex Luther (Jesse Eisenberg), Alfred (Jeremy Irons), Martha Kent (Diane Lane), Queen Hippolyta (Connie Nielsen) and Mira (Amber Heard). If I blinked I would have missed you.
To be fair, the last 45 minutes of this film are really interesting (including an Epilogue that sets up a sequel that we’ll never see), but in order to get there, you need to slog through 3 hours and 15 minutes of this disjointed film.
Worth the effort for the “Fanboys” and “Hardcores”, not worth the effort for the “Average Joe”.
Letter Grade: B (I really, really liked the Epilogue)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Kingdom in Books
Sep 20, 2020
“Where Happily Ever After is not just a promise, but a rule”
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
I mean with a tag line like that you can’t not be drawn in by this book! If that doesn’t grab you then the gorgeous cover art will.
Once you get past the wonderful aesthetics; the ‘Disney x Westworld x Big Little Lies’ reality that Jess Rothenberg conjures is sure to captivate you. Rothenberg manages to describe her Kingdom in such minute detail without it seeming contrite: the brazen references to meet and greets, monorails and “the park” are like catnip to a Disney geek like myself; whilst the proclamation from the outset that a crime has occurred appeals to the (slightly) more mature side of this 32 year old bookworm.
The Kingdom is a magical place where dreams come true: or is it? The star attractions: the princesses; are beautiful, perfect, always say the right thing and…are Artificial Intelligence. Their sophisticated technology, wireless signals and encyclopaedic knowledge ensure the princesses are as perfect as possible but it quickly becomes apparent that the princesses are, in fact, prisoners: constantly under surveillance, tracked by GPS implants in their wrists and strapped to their beds at “downtime”.
Ana is our princess and storyteller, opening her world to the reader and introducing us to her “sisters”, “mother” and “father” as well as those who have slightly less favourable views towards the AI, or Fantasists as they are known. There is no doubt that Ana is advanced in comparison to other Fantasists that we meet: she is aware of the park’s wireless blind spots and admits she becomes weary of some songs, unruly children and fathers with wandering eyes. Ironically, Ana is a profoundly human character with whom the reader immediately allies themselves with. Despite clearly being a suspect in the ongoing murder trial, I can’t see any reader convicting Ana. On the contrary, it is a real testament to Jess Rothenberg’s writing that the reader identifies with the Fantasists over and above every human character in her novel. Even Owen, the main human character, is never entirely trustworthy and does not reveal his intentions readily.
The format of The Kingdom is unlike anything else out there at the moment, in my opinion. The mix of prose, advertisements, interviews, trial transcripts and even apps allow our Fantasist to tell her story but also allows the reader to meet personnel and witness events that Ana would never see. This aspect is crucial to the murder mystery vibe of The Kingdom and Rothenberg leaves the reader guessing right to the very end and begging for a sequel.
Rothenberg’s kingdom is quick to show its murkier, thornier side. Those who question their surroundings are made an example of; nature is manipulated for entertainment and nothing is what it seems. If you haven’t guessed by now, I absolutely adored this book. It had me gripped from beginning to end. If you read one Disney book this year- read this one!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bad Santa 2 (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The last time we heard from Willie Soke (Billy Bob Thornton) he was recovering in jail after being shot eight times. We catch up with him today in maybe worse shape. He is out of jail but finds himself unable to hold a job and drinking to extreme excess. Th only visitor he has is a delusional, simple minded and well intentioned Thurman Merman (Brett Kelly). On the verge of ending it all he receives an invitation from his old partner, Marcus Skidmore (Tony Cox), to make a big score by robbing a Chicago charity on Christmas Eve. Wary, mostly because Marcus double crossed and shot him on their last job, Willie decides he needs the money and it’s a chance to double cross Marcus. So, he takes the job and heads to Chicago. When he arrives, he finds that Marcus has not told him everything. The job was put together by his arch nemesis. Someone who is more vile, crude and despicable than he is…his mother Sunny (Kathy Bates). Driven by greed and with the agreement that Marcus and him will cut his mother out at the end of the job Willie agrees to go forward with the robbery. The unlikely trio set out to infiltrate and rob the charity.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2019
It started with a dog and a car...
If you are expecting to be wowed by unusual plot twists, stray from the formula or an exceptional screenplay then this isn't the film for you. If you are expecting all the elements that worked in the first two Wick tales, then this one will fill you up with a maelstrom of goodness!
I do enjoy when a sequel picks up right when the other film ends which is the case with Wick 3. John has just defied his superiors by performing his usual routine of dispensing the baddies at the Continental hotel which has caused him to now be considered "excommunicado" or free reign for other villains to find and kill him. After a round or two of assassinations, John tries to get his footing and figure out what to do next.
Simultaneously, a strange woman shows up at the hotel telling the Manager he has 7 days to remove himself from the premises since he had allowed Wick to escape and aided him in doing so. The same ultimatum is given to the Bowery King among his rooftop full of birds.
John makes his way to Morocco and meets up with Sofia and her cool two attack dogs who help him get in front of another man who knows where the head of the High Table can be found. Wick ends up back in the US after wandering through the desert to have a final showdown with yet another mega posse of hooligans.
The "Wick" trilogy certainly is gushing with style, great looking facades and non stop action which lets me forgive the repetitive nature of this film of the trilogy especially. The screenplay won't win any awards especially the way Wick seems to wander through the story talking with random bystanders on his "quest" to fulfill his destiny. The Halle Berry character was not really necessary as I enjoyed seeing her killer attack dogs dive at opponents gonads more than seeing her shooting thugs the same as Wick.
The choreography is the reason we watch as it is like a ballet of bullets and this film does not disappoint there. This time we get an impressive knife throwing barrage as well as a sword fight motorcycle chase (both stunning) which keeps things interesting and moving quickly through the lack of an intricate plot.
There really isn't even an assigned antagonist other than maybe the Adjudicator, but even she has others perform her dirty work for her. I am assuming we will see more of her in John Wick 4 - 10.
No real complaints as the 130 minute run time rushed by and I was enthused the entire time other than when I was yelling at my dog every time she jumped down from sitting on me to watch other canines kicking human asses.
I think this was her favorite film of all time!
I do enjoy when a sequel picks up right when the other film ends which is the case with Wick 3. John has just defied his superiors by performing his usual routine of dispensing the baddies at the Continental hotel which has caused him to now be considered "excommunicado" or free reign for other villains to find and kill him. After a round or two of assassinations, John tries to get his footing and figure out what to do next.
Simultaneously, a strange woman shows up at the hotel telling the Manager he has 7 days to remove himself from the premises since he had allowed Wick to escape and aided him in doing so. The same ultimatum is given to the Bowery King among his rooftop full of birds.
John makes his way to Morocco and meets up with Sofia and her cool two attack dogs who help him get in front of another man who knows where the head of the High Table can be found. Wick ends up back in the US after wandering through the desert to have a final showdown with yet another mega posse of hooligans.
The "Wick" trilogy certainly is gushing with style, great looking facades and non stop action which lets me forgive the repetitive nature of this film of the trilogy especially. The screenplay won't win any awards especially the way Wick seems to wander through the story talking with random bystanders on his "quest" to fulfill his destiny. The Halle Berry character was not really necessary as I enjoyed seeing her killer attack dogs dive at opponents gonads more than seeing her shooting thugs the same as Wick.
The choreography is the reason we watch as it is like a ballet of bullets and this film does not disappoint there. This time we get an impressive knife throwing barrage as well as a sword fight motorcycle chase (both stunning) which keeps things interesting and moving quickly through the lack of an intricate plot.
There really isn't even an assigned antagonist other than maybe the Adjudicator, but even she has others perform her dirty work for her. I am assuming we will see more of her in John Wick 4 - 10.
No real complaints as the 130 minute run time rushed by and I was enthused the entire time other than when I was yelling at my dog every time she jumped down from sitting on me to watch other canines kicking human asses.
I think this was her favorite film of all time!
Away ~ Meditation & mindfulness to sleep, relax, focus, breathe
Health & Fitness and Lifestyle
App
Those days when your night was shorter than anything you can measure. Those moments when you'd love...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
Sep 25, 2021
One of the many long time coming films from before the pandemonium finally made its way to our screens. The sequel to the film that made us uncomfortable to eat snacks while we were at the cinema... A Quiet Place Part II came out to an excited crowd going back to the movies.
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
The Abbots have survived the attack on their family and found a way to get the upper hand in the fight against the monsters. They need to move on, beyond the boundaries they're set up for themselves. But what is out there blocking their way? Friend or foe? There's no way of knowing.
I was sceptical about a second film, there was a perfectly good intriguing ending to the first, and sequels aren't always the follow-ups we hope for. Would there be enough to stretch out into a decent story?
Emily Blunt was Emily Blunt. The expected powerful performance, but it was nice to see her taking a slight back seat to allow other characters to take the lead... whether I enjoyed that or not.
The biggest change on that front was giving Regan a bigger piece of the action, and the chance to show the leadership that is now missing since the death of her father. And we get an interesting pairing with her and Cillian Murphy, there's a bond made that leads them to learn about each other and it was nice, while a little sad, to see her with a new father figure in her life for a while.
Murphy's character of Emmett seems far more at home with his life as a "lone survivor" than he did as a family man. He's bunkered down outside their radius and got himself a nice little set up... but... there's one very large point that is not addressed during the films, and it's quick frankly too odd (and slightly sinister) for them to have avoided. Apart from that, Emmett does unfold nicely through the film, and he really adjusts well to being reconnected with the Abbotts.
As much as I like Noah Jupe, I found Marcus to be entirely too frustrating in this film. I don't like to wish ill upon people, but, he deserved to be eaten by a monster, or at least lightly maimed. Reckless and idiotic, he quite frankly didn't deserve any kind of redemption.
Even more so than the first, this film gave me heavy Lost vibes. If you broke some of the scenes down into their vaguest detail and asked people to guess what you were talking about, I'd certainly forgive people for guessing wrong. But yet again it's a suspenseful offering, and I found it hilarious when I fell for the jump scares. Coming out to an almost instant announcement of a third film left me wondering though. What could it do from here? It really felt like it had come to a natural ending.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/09/a-quiet-place-part-ii-movie-review.html
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2019
Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/ Captain America
RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron man
Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes
Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-man
Chadwick Boseman as Black panther/Tchalla (1 more)
The Airport fight scene
The climatic three-way battle
Zemo is a fantastic villian brilliantly played by Daniel Bruhl
Feels like a Captain America movie
Giant-Man is awesome,so is Paul Rudd
Mission Report, December 16, 1991
"Captain America: Civil War" is not only the best "Captain America" movie yet, but it may just be at the very top of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, due to it's emotionally satisfying themes. That may seem like extremely high praise, so I will explain why I believe that to be true, as well as why I think this is the most mature Marvel film to this point. Loosely following the events of both "Captain America: The Winter Solider" and "Avengers: Age of Ultron," while still harking back to previous films from this universe, this 13th installment in the ever growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, follows the team on different paths as they are once again pulled together.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra in Tabletop Games
Oct 15, 2019
Sometimes, finding a game that the entire group loves can be extremely difficult. Such was not the case when Purple Phoenix Games played Azul. We immediately fell in love with it, as you can see by its well-earned Golden Feather Award. So when Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra was released, we knew we had to try it! A reimplementation of a game we all loved – we were so stoked to get it to the table. How does this ‘sequel’ hold up to the OG Azul? Keep reading to find out!
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.
For many years you have worked as a tile layer, creating uniquely beautiful mosaics that adorn walls all around the world. Taking your expert skills, you’ve decided to hone your talent into a new form of mosaic decoration – stained glass windows. Select the most colorful glass combinations to create elaborate and beautiful designs, all while being careful not to waste or break any of your supplies in the process! Years of tile-laying have resulted in a steady hand, but glass is a different story. Does your talent and eye for design transcend materials, or are you better left to your familiar ceramic tiles?
Disclaimer: I do not intend to rehash the entire rulebook in this review. I will briefly go over the turn order, but will leave the specifics for you to discover in the rulebook! – L
Like Azul, Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a game of pattern building, set collection, and tile placement. To set up, each player receives a palace board, 8 double-sided pattern strips, and glazier (pawn) in their chosen color. All players need to select the same side, A or B, for their palace boards, but the pattern strips can be placed with either side face-up. Place your glazier above the left-most pattern strip, and you are ready to go! The designated score-keeper sets up the score board – placing each players’ scoring cube on the score track and broken glass track, as well as randomly placing 1 tile of each color on the round tracker. Much like OG Azul, a certain number of factories are in play, each populated with 4 pane tiles. Now the game can begin!
On your turn, you may do one of two things – Advance a pattern, or Move your glazier to the left-most pattern strip. If you choose to advance a pattern, you complete these three steps: Select pane pieces of one color from a factory or the middle of the table, place the pieces on one of your pattern strips, and check to see if the pattern is complete. Easy enough! There are a few placement restrictions to keep in mind, and they are detailed in the rulebook. Moving on, after placing your tiles, if the pattern strip is not yet full, your turn is over and play continues with the next player. If you have successfully filled the entire pattern strip, you get to immediately score that window, and then your turn ends. Specific steps for scoring are found in the rulebook. The other action available to you on your turn is to move your glazier back to the left-most pattern strip. Once you do this, your turn is over. Play continues over six rounds, and the player at the end of the game with the most points is the winner!
So how does Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra hold up? I think it’s a pretty great game. It’s very mechanically and thematically similar to the original Azul, but there is enough of a difference in gameplay that keeps it interesting. It doesn’t just feel like the exact same game to me, even if there are many similarities between the two. There definitely is a good amount of strategy involved, and I think the addition of the glazier (which can sorta restrict your placement options) adds a new level of complexity to the game. Do you dare ‘waste’ a turn to reset your glazier, or do you risk the points and try to complete your current pattern strip?
Another great thing about this game is the variability of it. Each player receives 8 double-sided pattern strips to begin the game. The strips can be placed with whichever face up or down that you want. So no two players will ever have the same setup, just as you will probably never have the same setup yourself between plays. One wrong placement could maybe end up costing you the game! There is no ‘right’ setup, and the fact that everyone’s setup will be different makes the game a little more unique.
Of course, the components are great and the tiles are so much fun to handle. Unlike OG Azul, these tiles are semi-transparent and crystalline, giving them the semblance of actual glass. The pattern strips/palace boards are good, sturdy cardboard, and can definitely withstand the amount of manipulation they see each game. My one qualm is with the score tracker. Instead of moving linearly, the score tracker moves kind of zig-zag-y around the board, and it takes me a minute sometimes to read the points and move my marker quickly because my eyes have to figure out the score line. Yeah, it looks cool, but its just a little inconvenient for me while playing.
Overall, I think Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra is a great ‘sequel’ to Azul. It feels familiar in mechanics and theme, but different enough in overall gameplay that I think it is a good stand-alone reimplementation. And guess what? Another Azul game is in the works! Titled Azul: Summer Pavilion, it is yet another game of tile drafting/placement and set collection. Since I have high praise for Stained Glass of Sintra, I am definitely looking forward to this newest version of Azul, coming soon! Purple Phoenix Games gives Azul: Stained Glass of Sintra, a colorful 9 / 12.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: Renaissance in Books
May 15, 2017
Descriptive writing (2 more)
Delving deeper into the story
Reading about plot points that weren't told until the sequel game
I am Ezio Auditore da Firenze. And like my father before me I am an Assassin...
The story of the Assassin from Italy, who we followed for 3 of the 13 console games (9 in the main series, 4 other games on Xbox - 3 of which are the Assassins Creed Chronicles, and 1 being Assassin's Creed: Liberation). The story of Ezio Auditore is one of vengeance, and discovery.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.
We begin with the story following his father however, another great installment in this series that gives us more back story that you can only find fragments of within the game and other media such as the short film Assassin's Creed Lineage. Ezio's story begins shortly after, when his father and brothers are killed, due to a betrayal, leaving behind Ezio, his mother and his sister. Together they flee the city and Ezio's story begins to unfold as he learns more about his father's secret, and the order to which his father and their ancestors belonged to. The Assassins.
Set in the beautiful time of Renaissance Italy, we follow Ezio as he travels to and from multiple cities, including his home, Florence, but also to the famous cities of Venice, Tuscany, and Rome. Each city introduces him to new friends, new enemies and more secrets begin to reveal themselves to Ezio which allow the character to become wiser and more developed over the years.
Oliver Bowden let's his readers delve far deeper into the stories of the characters than the games. The games are enjoyed more so for their game play and the freedom of your actions as you run around these historical landscapes. The books that Bowden has written, let us enjoy the adventure and the twists and turns of each story, told to us as though we were in the animus ourselves watching over Ezio but with no control over what happens to him.
If you play the games, then you know that each video game, in each of the settings, you will meet a historical figure. One thing that makes the franchise so brilliant is that the historical settings, and some of the events that takes place are historically accurate to the dates they happen. For example in the first Assassin's Creed, you meet King Richard the Lionheart, during the crusades in Jerusalem. In Assassin's Creed 2, and this novel, we are introduced to none other than the famous painter and inventor, Leonardo Da Vinci. Yes, THAT Leonardo Da Vinci, the same man that painted some of the world's most famous works of art such as The Mona Lisa.
As always Bowden's descriptive writing lets the reader truly feel the events unfold within our minds, and experience everything that the characters experience. The great joy of reading a book, is the imagination it can place into one's mind. As said before in my review on The Secret Crusade, the story is familiar and yet there are unfamiliar moments, that make the familiar story make more sense, and gives the readers and video game players a brand new experience.