Search
Search results
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
The cast (2 more)
Wakanda
The villain
Some side characters feel under developed (1 more)
Some CGI not great
Following on from the light-hearted romps that made up the MCU last year, Black Panther comes along and reminds us that the franchise can be dark, it can be gritty, and it can combine comedic elements with its more serious stories seamlessly when it puts its mind to it.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Poor Unfortunate Soul: A Tale of the Sea Witch (Villains #3) in Books
Sep 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A review by The Disney Bookworm:
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
The third instalment in Serena Valentino’s villain’s tales is the story of Ursula. I was really looking forward to this: after scaring the beejeeeesus out of me as a kid, Ursula has become my favourite villain as an adult. She definitely projects the body confidence I lack that’s for sure!
Regular readers will know I was left a little disappointed by The Beast Within and so it was with some trepidation that I ventured onto the next novel in the series. However, I was too tempted by the promise of a backstory to my favourite sassy octopus.
Poor Unfortunate Soul starts off really well, as is the case with all Valentino’s books. We meet Ursula as an orphaned human girl, raised by a loving adoptive father but never accepted by the villagers around her. She is acutely aware that she is different and is constantly drawn to the sea. However, when the villagers realise Ursula’s true form and start a literal witch hunt, her father tries to protect her and it ends tragically.
Vengeful and alone, Ursula returns to the sea and discovers her family isn’t lost to her after all: she has a brother, Triton.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Triton and Ursula are not destined for an emotional reunion and a game of happy families. Instead, Triton wants Ursula to conform to his idea of beauty and live in his kingdom as a mermaid. He also refuses to share his throne with Ursula: something their parents aspired to.
The siblings also disagree over the treatment of humans. Although both despise the race, the sea king disapproves of his sister’s vengeful ways and eventually banishes her from his kingdom. This only adds fuel to Ursula’s rage, causing her to plot to destroy her tyrant brother by using his youngest daughter: Ariel.
We all know how that story goes!
I really enjoyed this backstory to Ursula and the twist that her and Triton were related but separated when they were young. In my opinion it gave me what I wanted from the villains series: empathy for the villain.
However, as was the case in The Beast Within, I was willing for this to be fleshed out more. How were Triton and Ursula separated? What was the kingdom like when the siblings attempted to cohabitate? Ariel’s mother is briefly mentioned as a friend to Ursula – was it her death that permanently severed Triton and Ursula’s relationship? In my opinion, Ursula’s brief relationship with her brother is the lynch pin in her demise but the details are glossed over as an almost appendix in the story. I wanted more of this and less of Tulip!
Ah yes, Tulip is back! Although for the life of me I’m not sure why!
Yes, she was in the last book and we know she made a deal with Ursula.
Yes, she links the books together, particularly with the references to Maleficent’s evil doings in a neighbouring kingdom.
Yes, she has a friendship with Circe and Pflanze: allowing the odd sisters to locate their beloved sister.
Yes, she has a weird nanny who feels like she should be someone but I’m not entirely sure whom.
But dear god she takes up too much of these books. She clearly regained her beauty for a reason and I’m sure her royal suitor has a future role but she just doesn’t interest me as a character. She’s an extra: popping up now and again to make some link in the storyline.
I can’t delve much further into this book without completely ruining the story for you so let me just say that I enjoyed the book more than The Beast Within. Poor Unfortunate Soul gave me the backstory of Ursula and allowed me to witness how her hate and thirst for power consumed her, as well as the consequences of this.
The novel was less heavily involved with the Odd Sisters than The Beast Within. It seemed that the villain was the main focus which was in keeping with Fairest of All and greatly appreciated. However, I was still left wanting more: these are thin books and a quick read; I just feel that the opportunities for developing real, complex villains are being missed.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"if you could make god bleed people would cease to believe in him"
What made Iron Man so great was its original story, exciting action, and stellar performances. But beneath all the spectacle was a heart, characters we cared about and a coherent story in which we watched a narsasistic asshole become a good guy. All of that has vanished in the rushed, noisy, but enjoyable sequel.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated River Road in Books
Feb 8, 2018
Nan Lewis is a creative writing professor at a state school in upstate New York. She lives alone after the tragic death of her young daughter, Emmy--an incident which her marriage could not survive. She's recently been denied tenure by her school and is upset and agitated the university's holiday party. On her way home, she hits a deer, but cannot find the animal when she goes to check on it. Nan eventually makes it back home in a snowstorm, leaving her car at the bottom of her icy, unplowed driveway. But when she wakes in the morning, she learns that one of her prized students, Leia, was killed in a hit-and-run the night before on River Road: the exact road where Nan hit the deer. Because her car was damaged from hitting the deer, Nan is the prime suspect, and she quickly loses the support of her colleagues, who point out that she has become a functioning alcoholic since her daughter's death. Even worse, Nan starts seeing signs that remind her of Emmy's death. Are Emmy and Leia's deaths related? How much did Nan have to drink the night she hit the deer? Will she clear her name before her entire life is destroyed?
I'm honestly not sure why I enjoyed this book as much as I did. It had several things working against it: 1) an unlikable narrator who drinks heavily; 2) a storyline that heavily involved dead children and pets (why?!); and 3) an easily guessed villain. Still, I found this one compulsively readable and stayed up far past my bedtime to finish the second half of the book. Nan grew on me, and I found myself almost protective of her. The lead policeman in the novel, Joe, was a favorite of mine. While I figured out the villain fairly early, I didn't understand the motives, so the plot kept me guessing until the end. Goodman weaves several storylines together--which intersect, but loosely--and somehow they all work. There are several supporting characters, including the woman who killed Nan's daughter and a young single mother from one of Nan's classes, who give the novel a surprising depth.
Anyway, despite some of the craziness, I found myself enjoying the book and racing to finish it. I first fell in love with Goodman due to her novel [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707]. That book was impressive and still sits on my bookshelf to this day. If you haven't read it, I certainly recommend it. However, [b:River Road|25111007|River Road|Carol Goodman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1454544060s/25111007.jpg|44804735] is a fun thriller and a worthy diversion.
I'm honestly not sure why I enjoyed this book as much as I did. It had several things working against it: 1) an unlikable narrator who drinks heavily; 2) a storyline that heavily involved dead children and pets (why?!); and 3) an easily guessed villain. Still, I found this one compulsively readable and stayed up far past my bedtime to finish the second half of the book. Nan grew on me, and I found myself almost protective of her. The lead policeman in the novel, Joe, was a favorite of mine. While I figured out the villain fairly early, I didn't understand the motives, so the plot kept me guessing until the end. Goodman weaves several storylines together--which intersect, but loosely--and somehow they all work. There are several supporting characters, including the woman who killed Nan's daughter and a young single mother from one of Nan's classes, who give the novel a surprising depth.
Anyway, despite some of the craziness, I found myself enjoying the book and racing to finish it. I first fell in love with Goodman due to her novel [b:The Lake of Dead Languages|120274|The Lake of Dead Languages|Carol Goodman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320554718s/120274.jpg|3159707]. That book was impressive and still sits on my bookshelf to this day. If you haven't read it, I certainly recommend it. However, [b:River Road|25111007|River Road|Carol Goodman|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1454544060s/25111007.jpg|44804735] is a fun thriller and a worthy diversion.
Let me start off by saying that I love Marissa Meyer's writing so much, but this book wasn't as good for me as The Lunar Chronicles.
This was a really cute and quirky book with so many puns! I loved all of the puns about baking, they gave me life. Especially since I love puns and I love baking, so putting those two things together made me so happy!
This had a very interesting story, one we all know the end of, just not how the story will get to that point. If you have read or even know of Alice in Wonderland, you know that the Queen of Hearts is a villain, so it was interesting to see how she got to be that way. I am always a little hesitant to read the villain backstories because a lot of times, authors will make them out to be the heroes and completely go against what the audiences know about these beloved villains. While Meyer does have some instances of this, she also is able to build up the story enough to the point where it may be believable.
So there are going to be some plot spoilers in this paragraph, so if you do not want to read them, skip to the next paragraph! Okay, so the plot goes like this: Catherine doesn't want to be queen, she wants to bake, but the King of Hearts, as well as her parents, want her to be the queen. Cue the Joker, Jest, who is the wrong guy to fall for, but she does it anyway which eventually gets him killed and will make Cath want revenge and become the killer we know her as. There were a lot of moments throughout the plot that I was not as engaged with because they felt like they had been too much. Of course Cath would fall for Jest and of course a man would be her turning point. I was not the biggest fan of those aspects of the story. I wanted her to have more agency in why she becomes the Queen of Hearts, not just that she wants to use her power to avenge her lost love.
There was a prophecy in this book, I won't say what it was, but I will say that it wasn't my favorite because it takes any and all tension out of the story.
I loved the play on names from Meyer. Hatta being the Mad Hatter and Haigher being the March Hair, loved it!
The characters were pretty interesting, but they weren't as gripping or memorable as I would have like them to be.
I usually adore Marissa Meyer's books, but this one fell a little flat for me. Overall, it was enjoyable, but I am not sure if I would read it again.
This was a really cute and quirky book with so many puns! I loved all of the puns about baking, they gave me life. Especially since I love puns and I love baking, so putting those two things together made me so happy!
This had a very interesting story, one we all know the end of, just not how the story will get to that point. If you have read or even know of Alice in Wonderland, you know that the Queen of Hearts is a villain, so it was interesting to see how she got to be that way. I am always a little hesitant to read the villain backstories because a lot of times, authors will make them out to be the heroes and completely go against what the audiences know about these beloved villains. While Meyer does have some instances of this, she also is able to build up the story enough to the point where it may be believable.
So there are going to be some plot spoilers in this paragraph, so if you do not want to read them, skip to the next paragraph! Okay, so the plot goes like this: Catherine doesn't want to be queen, she wants to bake, but the King of Hearts, as well as her parents, want her to be the queen. Cue the Joker, Jest, who is the wrong guy to fall for, but she does it anyway which eventually gets him killed and will make Cath want revenge and become the killer we know her as. There were a lot of moments throughout the plot that I was not as engaged with because they felt like they had been too much. Of course Cath would fall for Jest and of course a man would be her turning point. I was not the biggest fan of those aspects of the story. I wanted her to have more agency in why she becomes the Queen of Hearts, not just that she wants to use her power to avenge her lost love.
There was a prophecy in this book, I won't say what it was, but I will say that it wasn't my favorite because it takes any and all tension out of the story.
I loved the play on names from Meyer. Hatta being the Mad Hatter and Haigher being the March Hair, loved it!
The characters were pretty interesting, but they weren't as gripping or memorable as I would have like them to be.
I usually adore Marissa Meyer's books, but this one fell a little flat for me. Overall, it was enjoyable, but I am not sure if I would read it again.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Justice League: War (2014) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
February 4th saw the release of another Warner Bros. Animation film in the
Justice League franchise titled ‘War.’ DC Comics is continuing to bolster
its brand with regular animated releases, and they are doing a great job.
The film opens as an obvious origin story. Fans of the previous animated
films or TV series will notice some overt departures from the standard fare
of the last few years.
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) and Batman lead off the film with their first
meeting in Gotham City, working quickly to solve a strange spree of
criminal abductions. As the two broker a tenuous peace and learn to work
together, they realize the Mother Box they found is linked to others like
it, and they head to Metropolis.
Wonder Woman, on her way to meet the President of the United States,
encounters winged beasts similar to ones fought by Green Lantern, Batman,
and Superman. What’s unusual is that this time she uses a sword to
dispatch her enemies. It’s something I’ve rarely seen in previous comics
or animated works.
The Flash, Shazam, and Cyborg all make appearances, and the team’s
structure gradually comes together. Meanwhile, the villain reveals himself:
Darkseid (who is one of my favorite DC villains).
This story is told wonderfully, with great action sequences and voice
acting (Sean Astin and Alan Tudyk – notable names). Overall, I was pleased
and entertained.
That said, there are a few major oddities within the film that stuck out as
strong deviations from the norm.
First, Superman kills someone. Despite the circumstances, I was still
shocked to see his character taken in that direction.
Second, somebody drops the S-bomb. I’ve never seen swearing in a “young
adult” film before, and though it was only used once, I was still taken
aback.
Third, the portrayal of Darkseid. He’s a great villain because of his
physical prowess, omega beams, and intellect. The first two were
represented in fine fashion, but the last was woefully lacking. Nothing
about this film showcased his intellect at all.
Fourth, Shazam seems to favor his lightening powers over his physical
assaults, which again, is in contradiction to most other comics and
animations.
While I found all of these examples strange and uncharacteristic with
respect to the usual formula, none of them were significant enough to be
considered a problem. I’m curious to see where this new trend goes. Will
DC use this as a platform to start a new chain of films or TV shows? Will
the language and body count continue to escalate? These are questions for
the ages.
Bottom line: if you are a fan of the genre, please watch it. You won’t be
disappointed.
Justice League franchise titled ‘War.’ DC Comics is continuing to bolster
its brand with regular animated releases, and they are doing a great job.
The film opens as an obvious origin story. Fans of the previous animated
films or TV series will notice some overt departures from the standard fare
of the last few years.
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan) and Batman lead off the film with their first
meeting in Gotham City, working quickly to solve a strange spree of
criminal abductions. As the two broker a tenuous peace and learn to work
together, they realize the Mother Box they found is linked to others like
it, and they head to Metropolis.
Wonder Woman, on her way to meet the President of the United States,
encounters winged beasts similar to ones fought by Green Lantern, Batman,
and Superman. What’s unusual is that this time she uses a sword to
dispatch her enemies. It’s something I’ve rarely seen in previous comics
or animated works.
The Flash, Shazam, and Cyborg all make appearances, and the team’s
structure gradually comes together. Meanwhile, the villain reveals himself:
Darkseid (who is one of my favorite DC villains).
This story is told wonderfully, with great action sequences and voice
acting (Sean Astin and Alan Tudyk – notable names). Overall, I was pleased
and entertained.
That said, there are a few major oddities within the film that stuck out as
strong deviations from the norm.
First, Superman kills someone. Despite the circumstances, I was still
shocked to see his character taken in that direction.
Second, somebody drops the S-bomb. I’ve never seen swearing in a “young
adult” film before, and though it was only used once, I was still taken
aback.
Third, the portrayal of Darkseid. He’s a great villain because of his
physical prowess, omega beams, and intellect. The first two were
represented in fine fashion, but the last was woefully lacking. Nothing
about this film showcased his intellect at all.
Fourth, Shazam seems to favor his lightening powers over his physical
assaults, which again, is in contradiction to most other comics and
animations.
While I found all of these examples strange and uncharacteristic with
respect to the usual formula, none of them were significant enough to be
considered a problem. I’m curious to see where this new trend goes. Will
DC use this as a platform to start a new chain of films or TV shows? Will
the language and body count continue to escalate? These are questions for
the ages.
Bottom line: if you are a fan of the genre, please watch it. You won’t be
disappointed.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man (2012) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019
"You know in the future if you're gonna steal cars, don't dress like a car thief man"
So Sony had two choices, either sell the Spider-Man rights back to Marvel or press the reboot button on the Spider-Man franchise, so we got this and I see a lot of mixed opinions about this film, some love it, some don't, I think it's a good film but it's not as good as Sam Raimi's 2002 classic Spider-Man.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
After Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) is bitten by a genetically altered spider, he gains newfound, spider-like powers and ventures out to solve the mystery of his parent's mysterious death.
The action scenes in this film are enjoyable, especially the High School fight scene between Spidey and the Lizard and make for an enjoyable film, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have better chemistry than Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst did, seeing as Garfield and Stone where dating at the time which made for a better on screen relationship between the two.
I do like Gwen Stacy more than Mary Jane thanks to Emma Stone seeing as Gwen is useful in this film and doesn't always need rescuing, also I like how they gave Spidey some quips to dish out in the film but it was only done for one scene.
There are a lot of problems with this film, I personally don't like the photographic style of the film, it's too dark and grainy for a Spider-Man film and I prefer the style Raimi used, speaking of Raimi, the director Marc Webb repeated a lot of stuff Raimi did in the first film, I'd much rather he had added something new to the blend.
I didn't really like Garfield as Peter Parker, he was just bland and I couldn't care for him due to bad writing, he is alright as Spidey but he's not the best, Rhys Ifans does a decent job as Dr. Curt Connors / The Lizard but he is just a forgettable villain, you can see the writing isn't up too scratch along with the story, the story isn't that good sadly and because most of the scenes where rushed characters suffer as a result along with the emotional and powerful scenes.
I can see why people might prefer this to the Raimi trilogy because of it's darker approach to Spider-Man but I prefer the light hearted approach Raimi took, overall I did like The Amazing Spider-Man, it's a good film but it was done so much better by Sam Raimi 17 years ago.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Epic Indeed
In Guardians of the Galaxy, a group of unlikely heroes for a team to keep a powerful weapon out of the hands of a madman.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 7, 2021
Suffers from Sequel-itis
If you ever heard of the term “Sequel-itis” and wondered what a good example of film suffering from this malady would be, look no further than VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE.
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The sequel to the surprisingly well made - and well acted - 2018 VENOM that introduced audiences to the (sometimes) villain, (sometimes) anti-hero, VENOM and the human/symbiot that he has bonded to (it makes sense in the first film) - this sequel looks and feels like a quick “money-grab” that is keeping this character “warm” for bigger things (I hope) down the road.
Directed by famed motion capture expert, Andy Serkis, VENOM: LET THERE BE CARNAGE feels like a movie that was directed by a Special FX veteran for this film is long on special effects and short on what makes a film work - plot and character.
And that’s too bad for the 2018 VENOM film was a surprise in that while it had it’s CGI moments (and plenty of them), it also had interesting plot and characters and took full advantage of two of the better actors working today - Tom Hardy and Michelle Williams.
The sequel looked promising enough as both Hardy and Williams were back and Woody Harrelson was cast as the main villain (with Naomi Harris along as the villain’s sidekick) so some of the ingredients were there for a quality sequel.
Unfortunately, this sequel leaned heavily into the CGI-ness of the first film and made the CGI Alien Venom the focal point of the story, relegating the humans to the back. No actor was pushed further to the back than Williams who was stuck with a weak “damsel in distress” arc while Harrelson and Harris take turns over-acting the other making their pair of villains some of the weakest in recent comic-book movies memory.
And then there is the performance of Hardy as Eddie Brock. He is sleepwalking his way through this film, looking like he has very little interest in what is going on and just wants to grab his paycheck and get home.
Some of these sins could be forgiven if the CGI elements - and the battles between Venom and Carnage - are interesting. Unfortunately, they just are not - they are “fine”, but nothing interesting or original, so this film is destined to get washed off the shore (and memory) as quickly as a sandcastle is washed away on a beach.
If you are going to check out this flick, make sure you stay for the “end credits” scene (which is only, thankfully, about 2 minutes into the credits), it is the best part of this film.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)