Search
Cartooner: The Fast & Furious Game of Drawing Comics
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Cartooner is a new experience in drawing games, a game that combines storytelling and drawing. It is...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (2021) in Movies
Sep 12, 2021
See Shang-Chi on the Big Screen
The new Marvel Super Hero film, SHANG-CHI and the LEGEND OF THE TEN RINGS is the kind of film that deserves to be seen on the big screen and Writer/Director Destin Daniel Cretton (JUST MERCY) has crafted a film that earns that statement.
Based on the Marvel comic book character (of course), SHANG-CHI tells the tale of…well…Shang-Chi a financially struggling - but happy - Valet in San Francisco who has a family secret.
Writer/Director Cretton has crafted a whimsical, mythological, mystical and action packed film that settles in at the top end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe family of films.
At the center, newcomer Simu Liu (KIM’S CONVENIENCE) more than holds his own as the newest Super Hero in the MCU. He is grounded, centered and more sure than unsure as he discovers his abilities and his family’s secrets. He is a worthy addition to this world of Superheroes.
Joining him is the remarkable Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as his best friend, sidekick who handles the drama comedy and action with aplomb. This film makes some smart choices with this character and Awkwafina shines.
The rest of the cast/characters are equally as strong from Tony Chi-Wai Leung (as Shang-Chi’s father) to Meng’er Zhang (as Shang-Chi’s sister) and good ol’ Michelle Yeoh (as Shang-Chi’s Aunt) bring strong characters to life. They all shine.
This film also brings back a character from a previous MCU film that somewhat redeems the poorly conceived character from his earlier appearance. I won’t spoil it by saying who it is, but I liked what the MCU did with this character.
But, this being a Marvel movie, all of these performances anchor a bigger picture that is filled with action, action and more action - and something else, something mystical.
Here is where Director Cretton really shines. The action scenes are interestingly staged and choreographed well. The first fight (the bus fight that is shown in the trailer) and a fight on scaffolding both particularly work well.
This film does delve into the mystical in the last 1/3 and in Cretton’s hands, this ends up working well instead of being comical or inane. I bought what was going on and was rooting for our heroes to defeat the undefeatable, fantastical creatures.
To be honest, the “final battle” didn’t really live up to the rest of the film so that brings this film down a notch, but this movie did what it needed it to do, it opened up a whole new area of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - in both character and locations - and I am anxious to see where they go from here.
Try to see SHANG-CHI on the Big Screen, the visuals are worth it.
Letter Grade A- (the finale needed to be better)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Based on the Marvel comic book character (of course), SHANG-CHI tells the tale of…well…Shang-Chi a financially struggling - but happy - Valet in San Francisco who has a family secret.
Writer/Director Cretton has crafted a whimsical, mythological, mystical and action packed film that settles in at the top end of the Marvel Cinematic Universe family of films.
At the center, newcomer Simu Liu (KIM’S CONVENIENCE) more than holds his own as the newest Super Hero in the MCU. He is grounded, centered and more sure than unsure as he discovers his abilities and his family’s secrets. He is a worthy addition to this world of Superheroes.
Joining him is the remarkable Awkwafina (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as his best friend, sidekick who handles the drama comedy and action with aplomb. This film makes some smart choices with this character and Awkwafina shines.
The rest of the cast/characters are equally as strong from Tony Chi-Wai Leung (as Shang-Chi’s father) to Meng’er Zhang (as Shang-Chi’s sister) and good ol’ Michelle Yeoh (as Shang-Chi’s Aunt) bring strong characters to life. They all shine.
This film also brings back a character from a previous MCU film that somewhat redeems the poorly conceived character from his earlier appearance. I won’t spoil it by saying who it is, but I liked what the MCU did with this character.
But, this being a Marvel movie, all of these performances anchor a bigger picture that is filled with action, action and more action - and something else, something mystical.
Here is where Director Cretton really shines. The action scenes are interestingly staged and choreographed well. The first fight (the bus fight that is shown in the trailer) and a fight on scaffolding both particularly work well.
This film does delve into the mystical in the last 1/3 and in Cretton’s hands, this ends up working well instead of being comical or inane. I bought what was going on and was rooting for our heroes to defeat the undefeatable, fantastical creatures.
To be honest, the “final battle” didn’t really live up to the rest of the film so that brings this film down a notch, but this movie did what it needed it to do, it opened up a whole new area of the Marvel Cinematic Universe - in both character and locations - and I am anxious to see where they go from here.
Try to see SHANG-CHI on the Big Screen, the visuals are worth it.
Letter Grade A- (the finale needed to be better)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Slightly Disappointed
So, here we are. At last. After a couple of great movies, a really poor third movie and a disastrous reboot/sequel, it was beginning to look as though one of our all time favourite superheroes was never going to get another movie to do him justice. And then, in what was already a hero packed, action roller-coaster of a movie, Spider-Man finally returned home to Marvel in spectacular fashion during Captain America: Civil War. A fantastic portrayal of Peter Parker and an even better Spider-Man, it was enough to leave us wanting more and enough to get us pretty excited when standalone movie Homecoming was announced soon after.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ant-Man (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Paul Rudd like you've never seen him before
You can almost hear the groans, yet another superhero film bulldozes its way into cinemas. Sandwiched between the ambitious Avengers: Age of Ultron and the Fantastic Four reboot, Marvel’s Ant-Man is the first of this year’s summer superheroes.
However, numerous setbacks that included a director walking out halfway through filming meant that Ant-Man would be haunted by the action behind-the-scenes, rather than that on it. But what is the finished product like?
Peyton Reed took over from Edgar Wright after some “creative differences” and directs one of the best films to come out of Marvel studios, despite a few issues.
The film follows the story of former criminal Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd, as he is tasked with becoming the mightily tiny superhero and stop a dangerous form of weaponry falling into the wrong hands – notably those of Darren Cross.
Helping him along the way is scientist Hank Pym, Michael Douglas, and his daughter Hope – played by the wonderful Evangeline Lilly.
Rudd’s casting raised a few eyebrows during the films pre-production but he is as charming as ever and really gets stuck into the role of a superhero. Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly are both more than a match for Rudd’s charisma and play their roles well.
What sets Ant-Man apart from the plethora of other big-budget superhero movies is the unique way the titular character utilises the environments around him. Summoning a host of ants to infiltrate buildings adds a new dimension to the genre that is much needed.
The CGI during these sequences is absolutely top-notch. When Rudd shrinks down we are drawn into a whole new world of giant carpet pile and huge ants and it’s hard not to get involved with the insects – you’ll never look at them in the same way again.
Marvel’s usual sense of humour is also in fine form, but again taking a different approach. This is a film well aware of the fact that Ant-Man is a ridiculous character, one of the most bizarre creations to ever come out of the studio.
Thankfully, this doesn’t stop Ant-Man from being ridiculously good fun. The action sequences are thrilling and beautifully choreographed throughout the film and on the whole show that the change in director hasn’t harmed the finished product.
However, like the titular character, the film feels ultimately, very small. After the city-levelling antics of Avengers: Age of Ultron and all the previous Marvel movies, Ant-Man comes across a little lightweight and lacking in substance.
Overall, Paul Rudd’s first foray into the superhero genre is highly commendable. Peyton Reed has managed to overcome near constant bad publicity to create a film that’s funny, thrilling and a little different.
Marvel will continue to churn out these movies until audiences are fed up with the genre, and if the quality remains at this level, it may be a while yet.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/19/paul-rudd-like-youve-never-seen-him-ant-man-review/
However, numerous setbacks that included a director walking out halfway through filming meant that Ant-Man would be haunted by the action behind-the-scenes, rather than that on it. But what is the finished product like?
Peyton Reed took over from Edgar Wright after some “creative differences” and directs one of the best films to come out of Marvel studios, despite a few issues.
The film follows the story of former criminal Scott Lang, played by Paul Rudd, as he is tasked with becoming the mightily tiny superhero and stop a dangerous form of weaponry falling into the wrong hands – notably those of Darren Cross.
Helping him along the way is scientist Hank Pym, Michael Douglas, and his daughter Hope – played by the wonderful Evangeline Lilly.
Rudd’s casting raised a few eyebrows during the films pre-production but he is as charming as ever and really gets stuck into the role of a superhero. Michael Douglas and Evangeline Lilly are both more than a match for Rudd’s charisma and play their roles well.
What sets Ant-Man apart from the plethora of other big-budget superhero movies is the unique way the titular character utilises the environments around him. Summoning a host of ants to infiltrate buildings adds a new dimension to the genre that is much needed.
The CGI during these sequences is absolutely top-notch. When Rudd shrinks down we are drawn into a whole new world of giant carpet pile and huge ants and it’s hard not to get involved with the insects – you’ll never look at them in the same way again.
Marvel’s usual sense of humour is also in fine form, but again taking a different approach. This is a film well aware of the fact that Ant-Man is a ridiculous character, one of the most bizarre creations to ever come out of the studio.
Thankfully, this doesn’t stop Ant-Man from being ridiculously good fun. The action sequences are thrilling and beautifully choreographed throughout the film and on the whole show that the change in director hasn’t harmed the finished product.
However, like the titular character, the film feels ultimately, very small. After the city-levelling antics of Avengers: Age of Ultron and all the previous Marvel movies, Ant-Man comes across a little lightweight and lacking in substance.
Overall, Paul Rudd’s first foray into the superhero genre is highly commendable. Peyton Reed has managed to overcome near constant bad publicity to create a film that’s funny, thrilling and a little different.
Marvel will continue to churn out these movies until audiences are fed up with the genre, and if the quality remains at this level, it may be a while yet.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/07/19/paul-rudd-like-youve-never-seen-him-ant-man-review/
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Rhino Hero in Tabletop Games
Jun 12, 2019
What’s that on top of that building? It’s a…..rhino? Yes – you’re not hallucinating! Your neighborhood caped-crusader is indeed none other than Rhino Hero! Although not necessarily the most nimble of superheroes, he always gives 100% when it comes to protecting his people!
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Rhino Hero is a dexterity-based game of literal hand management in which players are trying to use their cards to build the tallest tower possible. In simple terms, picture a ‘Jenga’ of sorts mixed with building a house of cards – instead of removing lower tiles and adding them to the top, though, you’re just adding cards to the narrow tower in an attempt to build the highest possible building for our superhero to traverse! The game is very easy to learn, simple to play, and entertaining for all involved! Here’s how it works: All players start with a hand of 5 roof cards. Each player, on their turn, will first place wall cards (as indicated) on the previously played roof card. Once that is done, the active player will then choose a roof card from their hand to play on top of the newly ‘built’ walls. Play continues until either one player has played all of their roof cards, or until a player causes the tower to fall over! Dexterity is important – how steady can you keep your hand as you build the tower? But strategy is key too – some roof tiles allow players to take special actions (play an additional roof card, reverse turn order, etc.), so timing your use of these powers is essential to success! Do you have the steadiness and strategy necessary to help our Hero on his quest for justice? Or will you end up as the clumsy sidekick who ruins the plan?
I thoroughly enjoy playing Rhino Hero. It’s such a fun and lighthearted little game that I can’t help but smile every time I play! One reason it’s so great is that it is extremely simple to learn, teach, and play. Playing with new players? Try Rhino Hero. Playing with children? Try Rhino Hero. Need something short and light to play between big games? Try Rhino Hero. It’s just a nice breathe of fresh air and I am almost always down to give it a couple of plays!
Another reason why I like Rhino Hero is that it’s more than just a dexterity game. Yes, the brunt of this game is centered around carefully building the tallest tower possible, but the card abilities take it to the next level. It adds an element of strategy that keeps players engaged beyond just needing a steady hand. How can you use your cards to best benefit you, or best block your opponents? It all depends on your current roof cards, so every game can require a different strategy!
If you’re looking for a short, light game, I hope you’ll consider Rhino Hero. It’s not the most strategic or cut-throat game out there, but it will definitely keep you engaged until the end – with pumping adrenaline and shaky hands (for me, at least). Purple Phoenix Games gives Rhino Hero a rhinoriffic 16 / 24.
https://purplephoenixgames.wordpress.com/2019/05/09/rhino-hero-review/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Jun 30, 2019
" With great power comes great responsibility"
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record-breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.
The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camerawork is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.
Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.
Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller-coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The LEGO Movie (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Could The LEGO Movie just be considered one hour and a half long commercial for a children’s toy product? Absolutely. Does that make the movie any less entertaining? Nope! I grew up in the eighties. A time when toy manufacturers would make TV shows, mixing up entertainment with advertising in the tender minds of their youth demographic, and doing it well. We seem to be in a new age of that very same ethos of ultra-marketing, only now we have the internet to exacerbate the matter. That all said, The LEGO Movie is perhaps one of the cleverest, funniest, and perhaps most creative films I’ve seen in a long while. It’s enjoyable, fresh, and seems to celebrate with reckless abandon the joyous chaos of childhood play over the blind consumption of product.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
The comforting, self-aware, almost self-deprecating tone that has found its way into the LEGO videogames that have been hitting the markets lately that defines The LEGO Movie. The film takes place in a world made of LEGOs, and the characters all have snap-on/snap-off hair and can merrily disassemble the world around them and build again from the ruins. And while it’s not filmed in stop-motion (which was more disappointing than I thought it would be), the characters have the pleasantly stiff and jerky movement that is the trademark to the style. It’s essentially a film with the rules of a young boy at play, just making it up as things progress.
Even the story felt like it was straight from a children’s book. An average, run-of-the-mill, Joe… well, Emmet (Chris Pratt) falls unsuspectingly into an adventure involving freedom fighters, superheroes, and villains in a very Matrix-esque plot. When he stumbles upon the legendary Piece of Resistance, the only force that can undo the Kragle, a mysterious weapon being used by Lord Business/President Business (Will Ferrell), Emmet begins his journey to fulfill the prophecy and become the best “master builder” in all the world. Along the way he is helped by a plethora of recognizable, and not so recognizable, characters including Batman (Will Arnett), Shaquille O’Neil (Himself), Vitruvious (Morgan Freeman) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks).
Most children’s films these days, especially in the CGI genre, tend to be lighting fast paced, basically overloading you with unfunny material hoping to distract your from how lame the movie really is. While The LEGO Movie is frantic, it feels like controlled chaos. It has a point. There is a direction where all this weird wild silliness is headed. And while The LEGO Movie would be fine were it just a frantic and clever child’s comedy, it additionally bothers to reach beyond its bounds and address its own artificiality in a plot twist that was way more clever, daring and meaningful than anything seen in most modern adult thrillers. But I don’t want to spoil that for you.
So here it is again, my “Would I buy it” test. Absolutely. The LEGO Movie is great fun and a joyous celebration of the chaos I recall as childhood.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Transformers of the superhero genre
It feels like eons ago that Batman v Superman was announced as a genuine movie. Way back in 2007 there was a poster that seemed to signify DC Comic’s plans in I am Legend, but fans just thought of it as a pipedream.
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Now, in 2016, the moment has finally arrived. The marketing campaign has been relentless, the trailers have been criticised for showing far too much (which they have), and Ben Affleck’s casting as Batman was met with disdain rather than joy. So what is the finished product like?
Superman has now become a controversial figure after his climactic battle with General Zod, with Batman in particular being cautious of his true plans for Earth. After a new threat is created, Doomsday, they must put aside their differences to save the planet.
Following on directly from the events of Man of Steel, director Zak Snyder brings together DC Comics’ biggest superheroes in a film as loud as anything Michael Bay served up in the Transformers series.
Henry Cavill returns as the god from above with Ben Affleck taking over duties from Christian Bale as the Dark Knight. Both of them give great performances with Cavill in particular impressing. Affleck proves his doubters wrong and is more than a match for Bale, though his one facial expression wears thin over the course of the film.
Elsewhere, Jesse Eisenberg takes on the role of Lex Luthor in a portrayal reminiscent of Johnny Depp’s Willy Wonka – eerily creepy and well-acted but just trying that little bit too hard. Amy Adams makes a welcome return as Lois Lane and gets much more screen time here than she did in Man of Steel.
However, the most praise has to go to Gal Gadot. Her exceptional characterisation of Wonder Woman is one of the movie’s highlights and it’s such a shame she takes a backseat to the two titular characters. It’s clear the filmmakers thought highly of her too, as she gets her own thundering theme tune whenever she appears.
Unfortunately, the plot is just too nondescript and completely incomprehensible at times, with Lex Luthor’s motives remaining unclear throughout the 150 minute running time. This proves increasingly hard to swallow as the film progresses and makes his villain feel less menacing than he should be.
Nevertheless, Batman v Superman is visually spectacular. Snyder bombards the audience with breath-taking set pieces, dispersing them well enough to ensure the plot only drags in a few areas, namely at the beginning – though the film’s flabby length is a sticking point; it simply doesn’t need to be nearly three hours long.
It may all sound pretty negative, but the exciting and beautifully filmed final act almost makes up for these shortcomings. We also get to see an emotional side to the genre, something that has been sorely lacking more recently with the constant quipping of the Marvel Universe.
Overall, Batman v Superman was never going to live up to the hype and in some ways it does fall short. The battle between Bat of Gotham and Son of Krypton is disappointingly brief and the story lacks any real weight, until the final 30 minutes. But it’s filmed in such a unique fashion and with such confidence; it’s quite possible you may not see anything like it in the genre again.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/27/the-transformers-of-the-superhero-genre-batman-v-superman-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
This one belongs to James Spader
I doubt that Joss Whedon and the team down at Marvel knew just how successful 2012’s Avengers Assemble would go on to be. After just a few months of release it became the third highest-grossing film of all time, by no means an easy feat to achieve.
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Therefore, Whedon and co had their work cut out trying to build on the solid foundations they had laid when it came to producing a sequel. However, three years and $250m later Avengers: Age of Ultron hits our screens. But is it the follow-up everyone was asking for?
Age of Ultron follows the dynamic team of superheroes as they continue to save the world following the near cataclysmic events of the 2009 predecessor and of course every Marvel film released since. Here however, they are tasked with taking down a robot hell bent on destroying the world – a tough day at the office to say the least.
All the fan favourites return as well as some new faces in a film that is technically spectacular but a little overambitious at times. There are 11, count them 11, major characters vying for screen time in Age of Ultron and while Whedon manages to give each of them their own story arc, at times it feels a little rushed.
Joining the cast is James Spader as the voice of Ultron, a robot accidentally created by Tony Stark, and he is by far the most intriguing character in an already impressive line-up. Robert Downey Jr. continues to be on fine form as the wise-cracking Iron Man/Stark with Chris Hemsworth providing the eye-candy as Thor.
It’s also nice to see Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner’s Black Widow and Hawkeye get some much-needed fleshing out after their fairly limited roles in previous Marvel films, and Mark Ruffalo’s Hulk is a joy to watch.
Kick-Ass’ Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Godzilla’s Elizabeth Olsen also join the cast as Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, two characters fans of the X-Men universe will recognise. However, due to legal requirements their origins are changed and the fact that they are mutants is never revealed, unfortunately limiting their appeal.
When it comes to special effects, Whedon has made sure every sequence is brimming with the highest quality CGI, and despite a couple of lapses early on in the film, the majority of the picture is flawless with some stunning global locations beautifully juxtaposed with the characters doing their thing.
What stands out in Age of Ultron however is the plot. Avengers Assemble was a fine film right up until the generic city-levelling, headache inducing climax that looked like it could have come straight out of a Michael Bay movie.
Thankfully, whilst the action is dialled up a few notches here, the plot is much more detailed and the final scenes are utterly breath-taking.
Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron had a massive amount to live up to and in some respects it falls a little short, its overambitious nature is its downfall with too many characters needing screen time. However, as a good-time blockbuster it’s hard to find one better and James Spader is genuinely mesmerising as Ultron.
Is it the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Well, it’s definitely an improvement on its predecessor – but for me, Guardians of the Galaxy just takes that title by a whisker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/26/this-one-belongs-to-james-spader-avengers-age-of-ultron-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/