Search
Search results
Total War Battles: SHOGUN
Games and Entertainment
App
BUILD, BATTLE AND AVENGE! Specifically developed for touchscreen platforms, Total War Battles™:...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Army of the Dead (2021) in Movies
Aug 22, 2021
I can't say that the name Zack Snyder held any pull to watching Army of the Dead. I'm still mad that I watched 8 hours of Justice League. But, I was sold on zombies and the poster, so I gave it a go.
Zombies have taken Las Vegas and the only option to end the danger is to raise the city to the ground. As the countdown to the cities destruction begins, a group of mercenaries are recruited to enter the quarantined zone for a wealthy businessman. Their retrieval mission will end with them getting out of the city safely, or the zombies getting them... whichever comes first.
A heist film with zombies and plenty of action? Three of my favourite things in one. The heist part is solid, it had time constraints to add tension, and the added peril of flesh eating monsters brought a bit of the unknown to each scene in the quarantine zone.
However... the idea doesn't pan out so well in production.
I enjoy Dave Bautista's acting career. Drax is a legend, and his dramatic yet comedic role in My Spy is great. Army of the Dead is a whole new ball game. Scott has the potential to be a really good lead, there's backstory, moments of action that Bautista is made for... but there's that script. There are so many points that diverge from what's happening that he ends up with something that hovers around average.
The humour between Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) and Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer) was fun. It wasn't quite a double act but it did cut through some of the more serious (and clunky) sections. My other call out is Tig Notaro. I loved the attitude she brings to her role, that's the level of sass I aspire to. It wasn't until after my viewing that I realised she had been CGId into the film as a last minute replacement. For the majority of the time I didn't notice, it's just one group shot as they enter Vegas that sticks out like a sore thumb. And with it being so early in proceedings, I was worried that it would be foreshadowing for what was to come.
Thankfully though, the effects were pretty good apart from that (and that tiger). The creatures were impressive and I was pleased to see that they still had the consistency of who the zombie population would be while they were inside the walls. Some of the action sequences may have been a little over the top, but it is a zombie action film so you've got to give it leeway.
I enjoyed Army of the Dead while I was watching it. But it's one of those films that changes when you think about it deeper. The main issue for me is that... this film doesn't need to happen... and a close second is that they attempt to give it a twist that comes to nothing, and because of that, ultimately felt bizarre. I don't think I'd mind watching it again, but I'm not feeling the urge to rush to Netflix.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/army-of-dead-movie-review.html
Zombies have taken Las Vegas and the only option to end the danger is to raise the city to the ground. As the countdown to the cities destruction begins, a group of mercenaries are recruited to enter the quarantined zone for a wealthy businessman. Their retrieval mission will end with them getting out of the city safely, or the zombies getting them... whichever comes first.
A heist film with zombies and plenty of action? Three of my favourite things in one. The heist part is solid, it had time constraints to add tension, and the added peril of flesh eating monsters brought a bit of the unknown to each scene in the quarantine zone.
However... the idea doesn't pan out so well in production.
I enjoy Dave Bautista's acting career. Drax is a legend, and his dramatic yet comedic role in My Spy is great. Army of the Dead is a whole new ball game. Scott has the potential to be a really good lead, there's backstory, moments of action that Bautista is made for... but there's that script. There are so many points that diverge from what's happening that he ends up with something that hovers around average.
The humour between Vanderohe (Omari Hardwick) and Dieter (Matthias Schweighöfer) was fun. It wasn't quite a double act but it did cut through some of the more serious (and clunky) sections. My other call out is Tig Notaro. I loved the attitude she brings to her role, that's the level of sass I aspire to. It wasn't until after my viewing that I realised she had been CGId into the film as a last minute replacement. For the majority of the time I didn't notice, it's just one group shot as they enter Vegas that sticks out like a sore thumb. And with it being so early in proceedings, I was worried that it would be foreshadowing for what was to come.
Thankfully though, the effects were pretty good apart from that (and that tiger). The creatures were impressive and I was pleased to see that they still had the consistency of who the zombie population would be while they were inside the walls. Some of the action sequences may have been a little over the top, but it is a zombie action film so you've got to give it leeway.
I enjoyed Army of the Dead while I was watching it. But it's one of those films that changes when you think about it deeper. The main issue for me is that... this film doesn't need to happen... and a close second is that they attempt to give it a twist that comes to nothing, and because of that, ultimately felt bizarre. I don't think I'd mind watching it again, but I'm not feeling the urge to rush to Netflix.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/army-of-dead-movie-review.html
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Gone for Good in Books
Aug 26, 2021
An excellent mystery where a cold case intersects with a new murder
In the 1990s, the Lovelorn Killer killed seven women and disappeared. The last known victim was Katherine Duffy, the wife of a police officer, who was killed on Halloween. After twenty years, many wonder if he's gone for good. But a group of amateur online sleuths, known as the Grave Diggers, don't think that. They take on cold cases and investigate them. One of these Diggers is Grace Harper, a grocery store worker. Grace is sure the Lovelorn Killer is out there, blending into the same neighborhoods he hunted in. Detective Annalisa Vega's father--also a cop--was partnered with Katie Duffy's husband back in the day. Her murder was a defining moment in Annalisa's life. When Annalisa is called to the scene of Grace's murder and realizes she was killed in a similar manner to the Lovelorn Killer, she wonders if the killer is back. Investigating will mean dredging up Annalisa's childhood memories and giving everything she has to catch a murderer.
"With each passing year, the Lovelorn Killer recedes into history and people shrug at the mention of his name. Looks like he's gone for good."
This is an excellent mystery--honestly no surprise when it's by Schaffhausen. I love her Ellery/Reed series, and I'm excited that there's a new series from her. This is a dark read and Annalisa's personal ties to the case and investigation only strengthen this book. It's wonderful reading a story with a strong female detective (and a female boss). Annalisa is a new detective, struggling with the fact that she must work with her ex-husband, Nick Carelli, the established detective on the force. But she doesn't let that, or anything, stop her. Schaffhausen is so good at writing a police procedural; she writes about the processes and force dynamics so well. You feel a part of the investigation and Annalisa's police family superbly. Same with the city of Chicago. She captures the city perfectly. As someone with Chicago ties, this book is so Chicago. I cannot wait for my parents, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, to read it.
Told from Annalisa's perspective and interspersed with excerpts from Grace's journal, GONE FOR GOOD is tense and crackling with suspense. It's a fast moving read that keeps you guessing from the very beginning, which opens with Grace's death. Yet Grace always feels like another living character in the book, and she's integral to the plot. This is truly a dark read, with a lot of death and murder, and a "bad guy" who is quite bad. I'm always impressed at how Schaffhausen can write stories that permeate with evil and tension.
Overall, I loved everything about this book. The unification of old and new cases and way the Internet sleuths added to the cases. How Annalisa's personal life intertwined with the investigation. GOOD is well-written and keeps you guessing until the very end. I'm looking forward to the next book in the series. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Minotaur Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"With each passing year, the Lovelorn Killer recedes into history and people shrug at the mention of his name. Looks like he's gone for good."
This is an excellent mystery--honestly no surprise when it's by Schaffhausen. I love her Ellery/Reed series, and I'm excited that there's a new series from her. This is a dark read and Annalisa's personal ties to the case and investigation only strengthen this book. It's wonderful reading a story with a strong female detective (and a female boss). Annalisa is a new detective, struggling with the fact that she must work with her ex-husband, Nick Carelli, the established detective on the force. But she doesn't let that, or anything, stop her. Schaffhausen is so good at writing a police procedural; she writes about the processes and force dynamics so well. You feel a part of the investigation and Annalisa's police family superbly. Same with the city of Chicago. She captures the city perfectly. As someone with Chicago ties, this book is so Chicago. I cannot wait for my parents, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, to read it.
Told from Annalisa's perspective and interspersed with excerpts from Grace's journal, GONE FOR GOOD is tense and crackling with suspense. It's a fast moving read that keeps you guessing from the very beginning, which opens with Grace's death. Yet Grace always feels like another living character in the book, and she's integral to the plot. This is truly a dark read, with a lot of death and murder, and a "bad guy" who is quite bad. I'm always impressed at how Schaffhausen can write stories that permeate with evil and tension.
Overall, I loved everything about this book. The unification of old and new cases and way the Internet sleuths added to the cases. How Annalisa's personal life intertwined with the investigation. GOOD is well-written and keeps you guessing until the very end. I'm looking forward to the next book in the series. 4.5 stars.
I received a copy of this book from Minotaur Books and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nope (2022) in Movies
Jul 26, 2022
Original...Tense...and Entertaining
Producer/Writer/Director Jordan Peele has managed to accomplish something with his latest horror film - he has managed to make a completely original film both in concept and in execution.
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
To tell too much about the story of NOPE would be to spoil it - and letting this unique film unfold in front of you is a large part of the journey - but, to sum up…Hollywood Horse Wrangler, Otis Haywood Sr. (the great Keith David, THE THING), his son, Otis Haywood, Jr. - or as he is called in this film OJ (the incomparable Oscar-winner Daniel Kaluuya) and his daughter, Emerald (Keke Palmer of Disney Channel fame, amongst others) encounter some strange phenomena. Their investigation will draw in their neighbor, former child star Ricky “Jupe” Park (Steven Yeun, THE WALKING DEAD), a tech from the local IT Hardware store, Angel Torres (Brandon Perea, THE OA) and a wildlife cinematographer, Antlers Holst, who specializes in getting the “impossible” shot (Michael Wincott, THE CROW).
It’s a wildly entertaining, grip-your-armchair type of film that unfolds on the screen in clever ways (without getting “too” weird) - all with the pragmatic sensibilities of Peele, the former member of the comedy duo KEYE & PEELE. Jordan has grown into a filmmaker that must not be missed and in NOPE he showcases his skill with strong effect, being in complete control of the artistic point of view while delivering a highly entertaining thriller.
Of course, it helps that you have a performer as interesting to watch as Kaluuya - one of the finest performers in film today. He plays the taciturn OJ with complete “taciturn-ness” (if that is a word) and, in his skilled body, this performance works very, very well. He says more with a glance or a shrug than most people can say with a 1,000 words and he draws you into the screen and into his thoughts with tremendous intimacy.
Keke Palmer, by contrast, is the exact opposite. Her Emerald is flamboyant, chatty, up-beat and beset by inner demons made manifest by drugs, alcohol and smoke. It is a movie-saving performance by Palmer as she brings the heart and the energy to the proceedings while Kaluuya is the quiet brains and the soul.
Perea, Yeun, David and (especially) Wincott all add to the tapestry of the events and bring something interesting and worth looking at (and into) during the course of this film.
Peele ratchets the tension throughout this film like an expert and the Special Effects are used in exactly the right way that they needed to be used and showcased throughout the film - filling you with awe when that is called for and having you think to yourself “you’ve got to be kidding me” when that is exactly what the characters are thinking.
A masterful, original concept of a film by Peele - one that is not for everyone - but those that are into this type of thing are going to be in for a unique and original film filled with unique characters and more than one jump along the way.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Dark Lake in Books
Dec 24, 2017 (Updated Dec 24, 2017)
intriguing (2 more)
compelling
surprising
Rosalind Ryan, a popular yet mysterious teacher, is found dead by the local lake. She's been murdered, her body left floating with red roses surrounding her. Detective Sergeant Gemma Woodstock and her partner, Felix, are called in to investigate Rosalind's case. Nothing about Rosalind adds up--everyone seemed to like her, but no one really knew her. She lived in a cheap apartment, but clearly had expensive taste in wine and makeup. She was the youngest of four, with three brothers, one of with whom she'd quarreled recently. Her father, George, is ill and runs a large business conglomerate in Australia, yet seemed to adore his inscrutable daughter. As for Gemma, she has memories of Rosalind from their time together in high school, when the beautiful Rose seemed enigmatic even then. Gemma and Felix have their hands full, focusing on Rosalind's co-workers, students, family, and more. Who is responsible for the death of this lovely teacher?
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
This is an intriguing and compelling two part mystery, with the present-day case focusing on Rosalind, combined with flashes to Gemma's past, focusing on her history with her former boyfriend Jacob, who died as a teen. The majority of our story is told from Gemma's present-day point of view, but we get a few key snippets from the townspeople and occasionally Gemma's point of view flashes to the past.
I really liked Gemma as a narrator. The intersection of the case with her past was extremely well-done. I read some reviews where the readers didn't care for Gemma, but that wasn't the case for me, though I could understand, as the story wore on, how they came to that point of view. She doesn't always make the right decisions, and I'm intrigued to see what she'll be like in the next novel (Goodreads tell me this is the first book in the series). But for me, I identified with her in many ways and, because she was so well-written, really enjoyed the story from her point of view, even if I didn't always agree with her actions. It was also great to get to see a character dealing with the challenges of being female and a mother in a small police force--in a small town no less--in what seemed to be, overall, a fairly realistic fashion.
The story itself is great. There are several twists that really got me, so major kudos to Bailey. I read a lot of thrillers, and it's not always easy to surprise me! For a huge portion of this book, I had *no idea* where this was going to go, or who killed Rosalind. Several times I found myself genuinely shocked by the happenings and was completely enthralled by the story and Bailey's characters. (I also can't believe this is a debut novel - wow.) She does an excellent job at creating tension in the story and the characters, slowing unfurling plot points and details as we go along. This novel is truly a puzzle, the pieces fitting into place as we go along, and putting them together is a joy. It is so well-done and Bailey's weaving together the past and the present is excellent. I wound up really liking Gemma, and her boss Jonesy, and I'm quite excited this is a series. I can't wait to see where Bailey takes us (and Gemma) next. 4.5 stars.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated All the Crooked Saints in Books
Jan 10, 2018 (Updated Jan 10, 2018)
Story of love, loss, and sadness that everyone can appreciate
Maggie Stiefvater's latest--a stand-alone novel--tells the tale of the Soria family, who live in Bicho Raro, Colorado in the 1960s. On the family compound, you'll find the extended Soria family, including the three cousins: Beatriz, Daniel, and Joaquin. Beatriz is scientific-minded; so much, in fact, that she believes she has no feelings. Daniel is the Saint of Bicho Raro, and performs miracles for the Pilgrims who come in droves for the magic the Sorias can offer. Joaquin loves music and performs as Diablo Diablo on an illegal radio station he operates. The Sorias live apart from the Pilgrims they serve, believing helping and interfering with them after performing the first miracle will only bring on darkness. After all, it happened with Daniel's late parents. But when Daniel becomes involved with a Pilgrim named Marisita and a young man named Pete arrives at Bicho Raro looking for work, the Sorias are forced to confront many of their long-held beliefs.
I won't lie: it's a little hard to review this book, beyond saying that it's very much a Maggie Stiefvater novel. If you haven't read one of Stiefvater's novels before, I'm not sure I'd start with this one, even if it is one of her few stand-alone books. Her novels are typically full of all things fancy and fantastical, forcing the reader to suspend reality and be prepared to come along fully for the ride. If you can't do that, or don't enjoy such books, this isn't for you. Even I, who am familiar with her style, had a little trouble with this one at points.
Stiefvater has a way with language; she loves words and weaving a spell with them, and her novels are dense with beauty and picturesque scenes. She uses a repetitious style here in many of her sentences and the overall structure: again, something you might have to get used to.
Still, this book is bizarre but compelling. I put it aside the first night I started it and wasn't sure I'd enjoy it, but when I picked it up again, I was sucked into the Soria's story. The cousins are all rather enthralling characters, and you truly become a part of their journey. Sure, the miracle idea seems a little crazy, but it really just is part of the book, along with the owls, a giant, the moving earth, etc. It's really lovely at times, and I enjoyed the comparisons between miracles and radio waves.
As mentioned, Daniel, Beatriz, and Joaquin are all fascinating characters, and I also really grew to care for Pete, as well, along with another character named Tony. Even Marisita grew on me. There's a bit of suspense and tension to the novel, and you'll find yourself intrigued to see how things turn out. The themes of humanity, darkness, and family are well-done overall.
This probably isn't my favorite of Stiefvater's books; I love the Shiver series and The Raven Boys series, much like this novel, is even more mystical, but features the same sort of compelling characters as here. However, the story and characters grew on me, and I don't regret reading it. It's enjoyable, albeit somewhat odd at times. The story of love, loss, and sadness at its core is one everyone can appreciate.
I won't lie: it's a little hard to review this book, beyond saying that it's very much a Maggie Stiefvater novel. If you haven't read one of Stiefvater's novels before, I'm not sure I'd start with this one, even if it is one of her few stand-alone books. Her novels are typically full of all things fancy and fantastical, forcing the reader to suspend reality and be prepared to come along fully for the ride. If you can't do that, or don't enjoy such books, this isn't for you. Even I, who am familiar with her style, had a little trouble with this one at points.
Stiefvater has a way with language; she loves words and weaving a spell with them, and her novels are dense with beauty and picturesque scenes. She uses a repetitious style here in many of her sentences and the overall structure: again, something you might have to get used to.
Still, this book is bizarre but compelling. I put it aside the first night I started it and wasn't sure I'd enjoy it, but when I picked it up again, I was sucked into the Soria's story. The cousins are all rather enthralling characters, and you truly become a part of their journey. Sure, the miracle idea seems a little crazy, but it really just is part of the book, along with the owls, a giant, the moving earth, etc. It's really lovely at times, and I enjoyed the comparisons between miracles and radio waves.
As mentioned, Daniel, Beatriz, and Joaquin are all fascinating characters, and I also really grew to care for Pete, as well, along with another character named Tony. Even Marisita grew on me. There's a bit of suspense and tension to the novel, and you'll find yourself intrigued to see how things turn out. The themes of humanity, darkness, and family are well-done overall.
This probably isn't my favorite of Stiefvater's books; I love the Shiver series and The Raven Boys series, much like this novel, is even more mystical, but features the same sort of compelling characters as here. However, the story and characters grew on me, and I don't regret reading it. It's enjoyable, albeit somewhat odd at times. The story of love, loss, and sadness at its core is one everyone can appreciate.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Crescendo (Hush, Hush, #2) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Crescendo by Becca Fitzpatrick
Genre: YA
ISBN: 9781416989431
Publication date: October 19th 2010 by Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing
Rating: 5
(No summary, to keep spoilers out!)
Ok. Crescendo definitely wasn’t what I expected. I definitely liked it—maybe loved it. But I can’t say I enjoyed reading it. I won’t spoil it, but we’ll just say there were times when I wanted to wring the characters necks. It was wonderful, and it was miserable.
And Patch. Oh Patch.
Ok. Can’t say anything else about Patch.
I admire a book that surprises the crap out of me. Crescendo did that. I had absolutely no idea of who was the bad guy until the very last page, and it was nothing but wishful thinking that kept the hero in his position. Although the tension, both romantic and emotional, made it difficult to read at times, I tore through it and couldn't put it down.
So here are the things that made it wonderful:
1. The plot was woven perfectly, intricately, and complexly, and it surprised me. There was so much to it, that it might take a while for me to completely wrap my head around it. It did not have plot overkill, thank goodness, but it would have if it hadn’t been organized and written so well.
2. The emotional turmoil was very real… reading it was almost depressing… if I hadn’t had so much faith in Patch… Wow. Having faith in Patch isn’t a good thing, is it?
3. Not only was the plot complicated, but it was fast paced the entire time. There was no down-time, there was nothing simple.
As far as the writing, I have nothing great to say about it. It was every-day satisfyingly mediocre writing style and vocabulary, but it wasn’t bad.
And of course, the characters… well they don’t have that many redeeming qualities, do they? I mean, really. Name five things about Patch that make him a worth-while guy, besides being sexy and smelling delicious. And yes, sometimes I wanted to yell at Nora to forget about her pride and just “do it!” (no not that! you’ll understand when you read it!)
Now for my favorite part: The end. It was good and bad: Good because I got the end that I wanted in the first place (!!!) and bad because at the very end, the last paragraph, I read it and freaked out… SERIOUSLY? BECCA, THAT’S NOT AN ENDING! It was worse than Catching Fire. But the rest was wonderful! *swoons*
So. I absolutely recommend Crescendo. I recommend reading it when you have all day to devote to it, because you won’t want to stop and leave yourself feeling angry and depressed. Because really, the whole mood of this book is angry, sad, and depressing. But it was ok that way.
Then again… you may want to wait to read it until book 3 comes out. Because there will definitely be a book 3. And I definitely want it right now.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Content/recommendation: Ages 16+ for some sensuality. And you have to read Hush, Hush first or none of it will make any sense.
By the way, I got my ARC of Hush Hush at ARC swap. So head over there to see if there are any goodies you’d like to swap for. Last I checked, there was an ARC of Fallout, Tyger Tyger, Party, Perchance to Dream, and quite a few more. http://arcswap.webs.com
Genre: YA
ISBN: 9781416989431
Publication date: October 19th 2010 by Simon & Schuster Children's Publishing
Rating: 5
(No summary, to keep spoilers out!)
Ok. Crescendo definitely wasn’t what I expected. I definitely liked it—maybe loved it. But I can’t say I enjoyed reading it. I won’t spoil it, but we’ll just say there were times when I wanted to wring the characters necks. It was wonderful, and it was miserable.
And Patch. Oh Patch.
Ok. Can’t say anything else about Patch.
I admire a book that surprises the crap out of me. Crescendo did that. I had absolutely no idea of who was the bad guy until the very last page, and it was nothing but wishful thinking that kept the hero in his position. Although the tension, both romantic and emotional, made it difficult to read at times, I tore through it and couldn't put it down.
So here are the things that made it wonderful:
1. The plot was woven perfectly, intricately, and complexly, and it surprised me. There was so much to it, that it might take a while for me to completely wrap my head around it. It did not have plot overkill, thank goodness, but it would have if it hadn’t been organized and written so well.
2. The emotional turmoil was very real… reading it was almost depressing… if I hadn’t had so much faith in Patch… Wow. Having faith in Patch isn’t a good thing, is it?
3. Not only was the plot complicated, but it was fast paced the entire time. There was no down-time, there was nothing simple.
As far as the writing, I have nothing great to say about it. It was every-day satisfyingly mediocre writing style and vocabulary, but it wasn’t bad.
And of course, the characters… well they don’t have that many redeeming qualities, do they? I mean, really. Name five things about Patch that make him a worth-while guy, besides being sexy and smelling delicious. And yes, sometimes I wanted to yell at Nora to forget about her pride and just “do it!” (no not that! you’ll understand when you read it!)
Now for my favorite part: The end. It was good and bad: Good because I got the end that I wanted in the first place (!!!) and bad because at the very end, the last paragraph, I read it and freaked out… SERIOUSLY? BECCA, THAT’S NOT AN ENDING! It was worse than Catching Fire. But the rest was wonderful! *swoons*
So. I absolutely recommend Crescendo. I recommend reading it when you have all day to devote to it, because you won’t want to stop and leave yourself feeling angry and depressed. Because really, the whole mood of this book is angry, sad, and depressing. But it was ok that way.
Then again… you may want to wait to read it until book 3 comes out. Because there will definitely be a book 3. And I definitely want it right now.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Content/recommendation: Ages 16+ for some sensuality. And you have to read Hush, Hush first or none of it will make any sense.
By the way, I got my ARC of Hush Hush at ARC swap. So head over there to see if there are any goodies you’d like to swap for. Last I checked, there was an ARC of Fallout, Tyger Tyger, Party, Perchance to Dream, and quite a few more. http://arcswap.webs.com
Ross (3284 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Apr 30, 2018
Non-stop action (2 more)
Tugs at the heart strings
Moments of goosebumps
Scenes in Edinburgh Waverley station reminded me of my morning commute and therefore work :( (1 more)
Obvious impermanence
Just stops short of perfect
Contains spoilers, click to show
Contains spoilers, look away now.
You have been warned.
OK, here goes. On leaving the cinema I felt a mix of emotions. Excitement at the events I had witnessed, Anxiety for the wait for the next film, Thoughtful over the conclusion (Thanos, work complete, settling down for some time on the farm). But no sadness. Not a jot. I had just watched some of my favourite characters perish: the excellent new incarnation of Spider-man, the strong principled leader of Black Panther, all of GotG except the rabbit one, etc etc. One click of Thanos' fingers and they were gone. But ... I just didn't really care. I knew that the next film is going to involve another click of his (or more likely someone else's - my money is on Nebula) fingers and all his actions will be un-done and it turns out nobody died after all, because Disney.
The fact that it was all the new members of the team/universe that perished and all the original avengers survived (hawkeye TBC) was a total cop-out. I am so bored of Captain America and Iron Man (though I like Stark's comedy quips), and Hulk is fatally flawed as a hero due to being totally uncontrollable. Prior to Ragnarok I strongly disliked Thor, but now I do seem to dislike him less. Plus it is hard to see how any of those are strong enough to overpower Thanos and fix what he has done (if it comes down to a sombre, from-the-heart Cap speech that makes Thanos see the error of his ways then the cinema will see ROSS SMASH).
The whole movie is outstanding, don't get me wrong. The action, the pacing, the different new interactions, the story and backstory and the humour. Oh my, the humour. I think this is possibly the funniest MCU film yet - the writers really have nailed the one-liners this time. It could be that there is more tension and the humour cuts through it, that you notice it more, but so funny. The scenes with Spider-man (IRON SPIDER!!!), Iron Man and Star Lord and Drax were awesome.
Outstanding moments for me:
Thor's appearance in Wakanda (kicking names and taking asses) - proper goose-bumps
The first conflict in New York - Spidey, Iron Man and Dr Strange against Ebony Maw
The battle on Titan
Annoying moments for me:
Star-Lord ruining everything - twice! All he had to do was kill Gamora when she asked him to (before Thanos realised and made his gun shoot bubbles!). And then when they were so close to getting the gauntlet off Thanos (I was convinced they would get it off and Nebula would take it and be so much worse than Thanos). I guess this showed the human side and how emotional attachments are what define us blah blah but it was another moment where an illogical action from one person ruined the endeavours.
Still, the emotional rollercoaster was better than I expected and I am so looking forward to Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel and part 2.
You have been warned.
OK, here goes. On leaving the cinema I felt a mix of emotions. Excitement at the events I had witnessed, Anxiety for the wait for the next film, Thoughtful over the conclusion (Thanos, work complete, settling down for some time on the farm). But no sadness. Not a jot. I had just watched some of my favourite characters perish: the excellent new incarnation of Spider-man, the strong principled leader of Black Panther, all of GotG except the rabbit one, etc etc. One click of Thanos' fingers and they were gone. But ... I just didn't really care. I knew that the next film is going to involve another click of his (or more likely someone else's - my money is on Nebula) fingers and all his actions will be un-done and it turns out nobody died after all, because Disney.
The fact that it was all the new members of the team/universe that perished and all the original avengers survived (hawkeye TBC) was a total cop-out. I am so bored of Captain America and Iron Man (though I like Stark's comedy quips), and Hulk is fatally flawed as a hero due to being totally uncontrollable. Prior to Ragnarok I strongly disliked Thor, but now I do seem to dislike him less. Plus it is hard to see how any of those are strong enough to overpower Thanos and fix what he has done (if it comes down to a sombre, from-the-heart Cap speech that makes Thanos see the error of his ways then the cinema will see ROSS SMASH).
The whole movie is outstanding, don't get me wrong. The action, the pacing, the different new interactions, the story and backstory and the humour. Oh my, the humour. I think this is possibly the funniest MCU film yet - the writers really have nailed the one-liners this time. It could be that there is more tension and the humour cuts through it, that you notice it more, but so funny. The scenes with Spider-man (IRON SPIDER!!!), Iron Man and Star Lord and Drax were awesome.
Outstanding moments for me:
Thor's appearance in Wakanda (kicking names and taking asses) - proper goose-bumps
The first conflict in New York - Spidey, Iron Man and Dr Strange against Ebony Maw
The battle on Titan
Annoying moments for me:
Star-Lord ruining everything - twice! All he had to do was kill Gamora when she asked him to (before Thanos realised and made his gun shoot bubbles!). And then when they were so close to getting the gauntlet off Thanos (I was convinced they would get it off and Nebula would take it and be so much worse than Thanos). I guess this showed the human side and how emotional attachments are what define us blah blah but it was another moment where an illogical action from one person ruined the endeavours.
Still, the emotional rollercoaster was better than I expected and I am so looking forward to Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel and part 2.