Search
Search results
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Lone Wolf McQuade (1983) in Movies
Oct 6, 2017
L is for Lethal
Contains spoilers, click to show
Lone Wolf McQuade (P. 2/9/08)
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
As my ex-husband and his co-workers once discussed, this 1983 Chuck Norris classic contains an inexhaustible list of “man movie” elements. I shall enumerate just a few of the highlights here (spoiler warning):
Turbo-charged truck that hasn’t been washed in 20 years…check.
Multiple cut-away scenes containing only foul language…check.
Good guy silhouetted on cliff…check.
Too-tight pants…check.
Too-hairy chest…check.
Good guy lives in filthy, ramshackle bachelor pad…check.
Good guy assigned a partner that he doesn’t want…check.
Feds interfering with good guy’s investigation…check.
Evil, maniacally laughing, midget villain in a wheelchair…check.
Bad guys attempting to kill good guy’s daughter…check.
Same daughter later gets abducted by bad guys…check.
Good guy has disproportionately hot girlfriend…check.
Same girlfriend wears nothing but good-guy’s shirt, post coital…check.
Good guy hanging off hood of moving vehicle…check.
Good guys outnumbered by bad guys in every fight scene…check.
Single, long-range gunshot or arrow from crossbow causing car explosion…check.
Bad guy using a contrived mechanism to kill good guy, instead of simply shooting him in the head…check.
Beer, beer, and more beer, which magically revitalizes the good guy…check.
Strategically placed blood…check.
Flaming barrels…check.
Women totally incapable of defending themselves…check.
Good guy and bad guy putting down their weapons and facing off in physical fight…check.
Hot girlfriend dying in good guy’s arms, while professing her guilt and undying love…check.
More flaming barrels…check.
I could go on and on.
Among many other cheesy elements in this movie, I especially enjoyed the moments of obvious symbolism. The opening shot contains a psychedelic-looking, lone wolf accompanied by nothing but whistling. Later, when the bad guys attempt to kill Lone Wolf McQuade, they first assassinate his pet wolf. Foreshadowing, anyone? Another blatant symbol appears when Captain Tyler lectures McQuade about the public image of a ranger. The Captain holds a ruler in his hand, presumably because McQuade doesn’t “measure up” to his expectations. Ha!
In the most entertaining scene of the movie, Lone Wolf has been buried alive in his truck by the bad guy. Beaten and broken, he opens a can of beer found on the front seat, pours it over his effusively sweaty self, takes a sip, and then finds the strength to go on. With his eyes closed, and his head thrown back, he alternately opens and clenches his jaw while emitting a prolonged man-grunt. He then steps dramatically on the accelerator of his super-charged vehicle and is able to drive out of his own grave.
With the ridiculous costuming, cliché dialogue, subpar acting, and utterly horrible score, this film would have worked far better as a comedy. If you plan to watch it, expect to be incredulous, and try to avoid staring directly at Chuck’s hairy chest.
The Queen of Hearts' Tale
This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
Before she was the Queen of Hearts she was just a girl who wanted to fall in love. When Marissa Meyer finished writing The Lunar Chronicles, a series of books loosely based on fairytales, everyone wondered what she would do next. Continuing along the lines of using famous stories, Meyer has devoted an entire novel to Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. With thousands of references to the original tale, and a couple of other works too, Heartless is perfect for fans of Carroll’s salient characters.
Unlike most retellings, Meyer has focused on events prior to Alice’s accidental discovery of Wonderland. The resulting novel is essentially a theory as to how the characters turned out the way they did in the original story published in 1865. Drawing attention to the predestined Queen of Hearts, a young woman named Catherine, readers discover a reason for her development into an infamous villain.
Lady Catherine Pinkerton is completely unlike the character she is fated to be. She is a kind, thoughtful girl whose greatest wish is to open her own bakery. Unfortunately, this dream is just that, a dream. With the asinine King of Hearts resolved to marry her, there is little Cath can do to avoid her royal future. At first it may appear odd that Cath is so against marrying the ruler of Hearts, but she soon makes it clear she would much rather marry for love. So, when the court joker, Jest – a similar character to the legendary Hatter – catches her eye, Catherine becomes determined to control her own future.
Heartless is a humourous, yet romantic, young adult novel, full of both well-known and new characters. Set in a world with morals similar to the Victorian era, it works extremely well as a prequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Catherine is an admirable, feministic character who readers will struggle to believe will become such a notorious Queen. What could possibly happen to vastly alter her personality? Similarly, what is it that makes the Hatter go mad, and who is Jest? Being a character unique to this novel, there is a foreboding sense that this joker, and his poetry reciting raven – cue Edgar Allan Poe references – suffer a horrible demise.
Unlike Marissa Meyer’s previous books where the fairytales were not so obvious, the storyline in Heartless perfectly joins up with Lewis Carroll’s imagination. With references to mock turtles, the Jabberwock and other minor characters, there is so much to discover in Meyer’s interpretation of Wonderland – it even clears up a couple of scenarios from the original tale that may have bamboozled readers initially.
Admittedly, Heartless takes a little while to get going, but once it has, it is difficult to put down. Fans of Marissa Meyer may be disappointed that she did not stick to her futuristic storytelling, however all Alice enthusiasts will fall in love with this book – and probably with Jest as well. Overall, Heartless is a delightful book that reignites our inner childish imagination.
Before she was the Queen of Hearts she was just a girl who wanted to fall in love. When Marissa Meyer finished writing The Lunar Chronicles, a series of books loosely based on fairytales, everyone wondered what she would do next. Continuing along the lines of using famous stories, Meyer has devoted an entire novel to Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. With thousands of references to the original tale, and a couple of other works too, Heartless is perfect for fans of Carroll’s salient characters.
Unlike most retellings, Meyer has focused on events prior to Alice’s accidental discovery of Wonderland. The resulting novel is essentially a theory as to how the characters turned out the way they did in the original story published in 1865. Drawing attention to the predestined Queen of Hearts, a young woman named Catherine, readers discover a reason for her development into an infamous villain.
Lady Catherine Pinkerton is completely unlike the character she is fated to be. She is a kind, thoughtful girl whose greatest wish is to open her own bakery. Unfortunately, this dream is just that, a dream. With the asinine King of Hearts resolved to marry her, there is little Cath can do to avoid her royal future. At first it may appear odd that Cath is so against marrying the ruler of Hearts, but she soon makes it clear she would much rather marry for love. So, when the court joker, Jest – a similar character to the legendary Hatter – catches her eye, Catherine becomes determined to control her own future.
Heartless is a humourous, yet romantic, young adult novel, full of both well-known and new characters. Set in a world with morals similar to the Victorian era, it works extremely well as a prequel to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Catherine is an admirable, feministic character who readers will struggle to believe will become such a notorious Queen. What could possibly happen to vastly alter her personality? Similarly, what is it that makes the Hatter go mad, and who is Jest? Being a character unique to this novel, there is a foreboding sense that this joker, and his poetry reciting raven – cue Edgar Allan Poe references – suffer a horrible demise.
Unlike Marissa Meyer’s previous books where the fairytales were not so obvious, the storyline in Heartless perfectly joins up with Lewis Carroll’s imagination. With references to mock turtles, the Jabberwock and other minor characters, there is so much to discover in Meyer’s interpretation of Wonderland – it even clears up a couple of scenarios from the original tale that may have bamboozled readers initially.
Admittedly, Heartless takes a little while to get going, but once it has, it is difficult to put down. Fans of Marissa Meyer may be disappointed that she did not stick to her futuristic storytelling, however all Alice enthusiasts will fall in love with this book – and probably with Jest as well. Overall, Heartless is a delightful book that reignites our inner childish imagination.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Tear Me Apart in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Quick, engaging read
Mindy Wright--an up and coming competitive teenage skier-- breaks her leg in competition. During surgery, doctors discover that Mindy is sick: she has an aggressive form of leukemia and needs a stem cell transplant. But when her family is tested, it is discovered that Mindy's parents are not her biological parents. What does this mean? Was she switched at birth, or did something more dark and dramatic happen? At the core, Mindy needs to live. But beyond that, what are the ramifications for the Wright family? What secrets will be revealed and uncovered while trying to save their precious daughter?
This was a dramatic and interesting story that grabbed me from the beginning. The first portion is told from the perspective of three women: Mindy, age 17; her mother, Lauren; and Lauren's sister, Juliet, who actually works as a scientist in a DNA crime lab. This gives Juliet early and easy access to DNA samples relating to Mindy and the "case" as it progresses on. We also get excerpts of letters that appear to be from or relating to a psychiatric hospital in the early 1990s. All of this makes for an interesting and compelling format to our story, with a slow and steady reveal of strange information that you know does not add up: a twisted web of secrets and lies. We are immediately left wondering what happened with Mindy--how is she not Lauren's daughter? What is going on?
I do not want to go into too much detail and ruin much of the plot, but I found this one very intriguing, as I was wondering where the story would go. I might have been a little slow on the uptake as to who was Mindy's real mother, but I did find it exciting to put all the pieces together. I really liked the characters of Mindy and Juliet and a few others who were introduced later on (the story is told in various parts, so you get some different narrators, too).
In true Ellison fashion, there's some great drama and a few good "whoa" moments, as well. When I first started the book, I hadn't refreshed myself on the description, and I was a little worried that this would be more of a family drama than a mystery, but have no fear--while this family has more than their share of drama, there's a great mystery/thriller aspect as well. In fact, the novel can get downright creepy at times, with a villain who can give you the chills.
Overall, I thought this was another winner from Ms. Ellison. It's a quick, engaging read with interesting characters and a plot that encourages you to put the pieces together. She's quickly becoming a go-to author of mine. I'm actually chasing down her Taylor Jackson series on Paperbackswap, because I want to read more of her books! If you enjoy a dramatic, quick-moving thriller, I highly recommend this one!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a dramatic and interesting story that grabbed me from the beginning. The first portion is told from the perspective of three women: Mindy, age 17; her mother, Lauren; and Lauren's sister, Juliet, who actually works as a scientist in a DNA crime lab. This gives Juliet early and easy access to DNA samples relating to Mindy and the "case" as it progresses on. We also get excerpts of letters that appear to be from or relating to a psychiatric hospital in the early 1990s. All of this makes for an interesting and compelling format to our story, with a slow and steady reveal of strange information that you know does not add up: a twisted web of secrets and lies. We are immediately left wondering what happened with Mindy--how is she not Lauren's daughter? What is going on?
I do not want to go into too much detail and ruin much of the plot, but I found this one very intriguing, as I was wondering where the story would go. I might have been a little slow on the uptake as to who was Mindy's real mother, but I did find it exciting to put all the pieces together. I really liked the characters of Mindy and Juliet and a few others who were introduced later on (the story is told in various parts, so you get some different narrators, too).
In true Ellison fashion, there's some great drama and a few good "whoa" moments, as well. When I first started the book, I hadn't refreshed myself on the description, and I was a little worried that this would be more of a family drama than a mystery, but have no fear--while this family has more than their share of drama, there's a great mystery/thriller aspect as well. In fact, the novel can get downright creepy at times, with a villain who can give you the chills.
Overall, I thought this was another winner from Ms. Ellison. It's a quick, engaging read with interesting characters and a plot that encourages you to put the pieces together. She's quickly becoming a go-to author of mine. I'm actually chasing down her Taylor Jackson series on Paperbackswap, because I want to read more of her books! If you enjoy a dramatic, quick-moving thriller, I highly recommend this one!
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Thor (2011) in Movies
May 9, 2019
Two worlds, One hero
Thor is presented with a difficult challenge - believably incorporating a god into the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has already been established. This task falls to director Kenneth Branagh, who devotes sufficient time to both Asgard, Thor's (Chris Hemsworth) home realm, and Earth, where he is exiled to. Asgard is depicted through a heavy use of special effects which creates a sense of wonder, but the story is steeped in relatable familial issues. When Thor disobeys his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), he is cast to Earth as a mortal. His hammer, Mjolnir, is the source of his powers, and it is also sent to Earth to await someone worthy enough to wield such power.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Most superhero movies spend a large amount of time introducing their hero to their superpower, and then invest yet more time discovering the full potential of this power. In the case of Thor, this is reversed. He begins the film a powerful god and is then stripped of such a gift, forced to learn to live without such capabilities. It is here that the film really shines, as Thor attempts to adapt to life on Earth. He is not accustomed to human ways, and this fish out of water scenario is wisely played for laughs.
Of course, this being a superhero movie means a love interest is required to be drafted in. Enter Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), an astrophysicist who discovers Thor. She is accompanied by her mentor, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and her assistant, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). They all become entangled with S.H.I.E.L.D, who have previously been glimpsed in Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), and Iron Man 2 (2010). Throughout this series of films it has been evident that there is something larger at play, and with Thor this bigger picture begins to come into sharper focus.
Thor's brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is presented as the villain, but he mostly stays in the shadows and pulls the strings of others to do his fighting. This results in less CGI-laden battles but a stronger character-based story. Thor strikes a pleasing balance between plot and spectacle, effectively setting up a likeable hero and an interesting big bad. However, with most of the Earth-based action set in a small town in New Mexico, the threat never feels particularly palpable.
I was skeptical but intrigued by Thor, and Branagh does do a marvellous job of incorporating myth and legend into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I would have liked to see Kat Dennings given a meatier role to play, but that minor quibble aside Thor is a highly enjoyable superhero movie. Chris Hemsworth is great as Thor, delivering in both the heroics and comedy and Loki played by Tom Hiddelston is a fantastic villian. Sadly, the film doesn't quite rise to the bar set by Iron Man, but it does come impressively close.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Valentine's weekend wonder
It’s hard to believe that one of Marvel’s hottest properties – Deadpool, has taken this long to get to the silver screen. Of course, we can always cast our minds back to 2009’s disastrous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But for goodness sake, let’s not.
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Here, after much petitioning from fans and Reynolds himself, Deadpool finally gets his own origins story, directed by Tim Miller in his debut feature film. But was it worth the wait?
Ryan Reynolds returns as a much more faithful representation of Wade Wilson, a small-time mercenary going through the motions until a shock cancer diagnosis makes him rethink his life – and career prospects, at the cost of losing touch with his love interest, Vanessa, played by the incredibly beautiful Morena Baccarin.
Naturally, a villain in the shape of Ed Skrein’s Ajax, provides the film with its main opposition, though a few other one-dimensional characters appear alongside him every so often. Unfortunately, they make little impact throughout the course of Deadpool and even Skrein suffers next to Reynolds potty-mouthed Wilson.
MV5BMjE3MzI3NzAwOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDc2Nzc5NzE@._V1__SX1303_SY615_
Brianna Hildebrand, Ryan Reynolds and Stefan Kapicic. Photo by 20th Century Fox.
And ta da! The red-suited antihero is born, much like any other Marvel origins story in fact. However, this is most definitely not your typical superhero flick. From gratuitous sex, violence, swearing and drug references, not to mention the character’s trademark breaking of the fourth wall, it’s all here – and you know what, it’s a breath of fresh air.
Reynolds is absolutely born to play this character and is the best we have seen him in years. Gone is the romantic comedy slop or stereotypical action hero he has portrayed over the last few years and in their place is a witty, incredibly self-aware persona that is one of Marvel’s greatest assets.
Elsewhere, the direction is so confident, and the design choices so slick, it’s difficult to fully comprehend that this is Tim Miller’s first feature film. From a brilliant set of opening credits that poke fun at the narcissism of Hollywood, to some excellent commentary on the superhero genre itself, it’s very cocky indeed and very very funny.
Naturally, not every gag lands on target, but that’s no surprise given that even the best comedies suffer from this. There’s also a lack of development beyond the titular character that hurts the film’s more romantic side, and with Deadpool’s lengthy running time, this could’ve been avoided somewhat.
Other than that, it’s pretty much spot on. Ryan Reynolds looks like he’s having a blast in front of the camera, and Tim Miller looks like he’s having a great time behind it. What about the old Fox and Marvel rivalry chestnut? Well, there’s not even a whiff of it – apart from a sarcastic remark that is.
Overall, Deadpool was a gamble and with Fox’s less than stellar reputation for fashioning decent films out of Marvel property, a huge one at that. But, against all the odds it has paid off spectacularly.
Keep this to yourselves, but it could quite possibly be the best comic-book adaptation to date.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/13/a-valentines-weekend-wonder-deadpool-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another missfire
It’s hard to remember such a lacklustre summer blockbuster season. From unnecessary sequels to underwhelming novel adaptations, it’s been one disappointment after another.
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Simply Brilliant
Director Matthew Vaughn has brought some visually striking films to the big screen in his fairly short career, from the brilliant Layer Cake, to the movie which many credit as saving the X-Men franchise, First Class, he certainly knows his way around a camera.
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
However, Kingsman: The Secret Service is probably his riskiest proposition yet. Can a dark comedy about upper-class British spies with their tailor-made suits compete with the very best films in the genre?
Thankfully the answer is a resounding yes. The spectacular cinematography and fantastic performances in Kingsman ensure it is one of the most memorable and cleverly crafted blockbusters of the last decade.
The film follows the story of underprivileged Eggsy, played wonderfully by Taron Egerton in his first full role, as he does his best to join The Kingsmen, a secret society of spies working to bring down evil in the world.
An absolutely marvellous Colin Firth and a slightly underused Michael Caine also play part of this group – possibly creating the poshest ensemble of characters seen in a film for years.
Naturally a spy flick isn’t complete without a villain and Samuel L Jackson is on course here to become one of the cheesiest megalomaniacs ever put to the big screen. His deliberately camp performance goes well with the dark humour throughout.
Kingsman is also genuinely funny and a real treat to watch with explosive, over-the-top visuals and beautiful scenery which utilises what the world has to offer rather than delving into the CGI drawer many directors employ nowadays.
It all feels decidedly old fashioned and all the better for it with an almost grainy quality to the production – think The Avengers TV series but with a higher budget.
The plot is top notch and whilst it may border on cliché at times, Kingsman manages to steer the story in enough directions to make sure the audience never settles into a rut, the use of our reliance on modern technology being a particular highlight.
Special effects wise, it holds up well with most other blockbusters and has just a few lapses in CGI at the start and towards the riveting finale,Taron_Egerton_SDCC_2014 though these are barely noticeable if you’re not looking hard enough.
Moreover, it is a true pleasure to sit in a film and not wonder what the producers had to cut to achieve a crowd-pleasing 12A certification. Kingsman pulls no punches, this is a violent rollercoaster ride and well deserves the BBFC 15 rating it has been given. Whether or not this hurts its box-office performance remains to be seen.
Overall, Kingsman: The Secret Service is one of the only films which combines the ever-popular spy genre with comedy and manages to keep its dignity in tact as the end credits role.
So many films, Johnny English: Reborn and Get Smart to name a couple, simply delve into slapstick territory once the writers run out of ideas – this isn’t the case here.
From its exciting plot and brutally dark humour, to the engaging performances from every single character, Kingsman: The Secret Service is simply brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/30/simply-brilliant-kingsman-the-secret-service-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Giver (2014) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Striking visual translation
Over the last decade, cinema-going audiences have had the treat of numerous adaptations of popular young adult novels. Some of them have been particularly great – the Harry Potter series the highlight – whilst others have been less than stellar – Twilight, I’m looking at you.
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
However, with The Hunger Games on the edge of its tantalising conclusion, director Phillip Noyce introduces teens and adults alike to a whole new world in The Giver, but can it seduce audiences which have already had numerous fantasy worlds to enjoy?
For the most part, yes. Noyce directs this adaptation with extreme visual flair and commands some great performances from the veteran actors, even if the young thespians pale a little in comparison.The-Giver-Brenton-Thwaites-character-poster-691x1024
The Giver follows a community dealing with the aftermath of a brutal conflict. The Elders (people in charge) have been forced to eradicate all feelings, emotion, colour and memories from the past to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. Unfortunately, the plan isn’t fool-proof and one person each generation must be tasked with storing information from the past to ensure the progression of the future.
The book’s intriguing premise brings a striking visual translation. The majority of the picture is shot in black and white which adds to the emotionless atmosphere – just how The Elders want it.
Meryl Streep plays the Chief Elder and despite her limited screen time manages to command each scene she is a part of – though we have come to expect nothing less from the woman who played Margaret Thatcher so beautifully. Jeff Bridges is the title character – The Giver, who manages to impart wisdom to the one teenager each generation.
The teenage characters, despite their constant presence on screen, lack the magic and sparkle of their older counterparts. Brenton Thwaites stars as The Receiver Jonas and is probably the best of the younger stars, though a decent turn by True Blood’s Alexander Skarsgard helps alleviate the offerings somewhat, and there’s even a small role for Taylor Swift.
Despite it’s reasonably small budget of $25million compared to The Hunger Games $78million, the special effects are all of a decent standard. Of course there’s a few lapses here and there in areas were most people would probably never notice, and a few larger issues involving unrealistic space ships – but there isn’t too much to criticise as the striking cinematography is were the eyes are drawn.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for The Giver, it’s come at an awkward time when audiences aren’t ready to get invested in another young adult movie and therefore I predict its box office success will fall short of the quality of the film itself.
The acting is on the whole very good and it’s nice to see Meryl Streep getting her teeth into the role of a villain in a style similar to her role in The Devil Wears Prada, but it all feels a little unsure of itself. Is it a sentimental rom-com or a utopian thriller? Who knows, but it’s definitely worth a watch for the striking visuals alone.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/09/24/a-striking-visual-translation-the-giver-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zoolander 2 (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A Fashion Faux pas
It pains me to say it, but Ben Stiller hasn’t really been relevant for quite some time. His last film, the final movie in the Night at the Museum franchise struggled with critics and audiences alike.
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Once dubbed part of the so-called “Fratpack”, alongside Will Ferrell, Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to name a few, their success has fallen by the wayside since introducing rising stars like Melissa McCarthy and Chris Pratt to the comedy genre.
Here, Stiller gives one of his most memorable characters, Derek Zoolander, a sequel that no-one was really asking for. But is it worthy of your time?
In Zoolander 2, titular male model Derek Zoolander has fallen out of favour with the public and has retreated into hiding away from the prying eyes of the media to focus on getting his life back together. By a stroke of luck, a chance encounter with old friend Hansel (Owen Wilson) sets them on a path to help stop high-profile celebrity deaths, finding out who is behind them in the process.
The story is a little nondescript with the intentions of both the ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ not quite clear. There are elements of the first live-action Scooby Doo film in its design – and that’s not a good thing.
An all-star cast that includes the exceptionally beautiful Penelope Cruz, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig is bolstered by more celebrity cameos than you can shake a stick at. Justin Bieber, Anna Wintour, Sting, Ariana Grande, MC Hammer and Kiefer Sutherland are just a few on a list that is nearly endless.
Unfortunately, these cameos are the highlights in a film full of recycled gags and very poor camerawork. As we follow our two leads on their journey across a dreary looking Rome, Zoolander 2 drags with only a couple of laughs in the first hour – something the first one managed to avoid.
In fact, things are so bad, they only pick up in the final 30 minutes when Will Ferrell’s villain Mugatu makes a much-needed appearance, steering this near-trainwreck of a comedy into fairly decent territory. Ferrel’s comic timing is as usual, on point, but it’s unfortunate he puts Stiller and Wilson to shame.
Penelope Cruz is her ever-watchable self but piles on the shtick to such an extent that it takes away from her character, making her almost cartoonish in personality and actions.
Elsewhere, the clever parodies relating to the fashion industry are taken away; instead Zoolander 2 is lumped with cheap laughs that constantly try too hard to raise even the smallest smirk from its audience.
Overall, Zoolander 2 is not a patch on its predecessor with Will Ferrell providing the film with its only genuine moments of hilarity and this comes within the final 30 minutes of a 102 minute feature. Stiller may have tried to resurrect one of his finest characters, but in doing so, has tarnished that reputation.
Much like its lead star, Zoolander 2 tries desperately to stay relevant, and unfortunately this type of comedy just doesn’t cut the mustard anymore.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/02/21/a-fashion-faux-pas-zoolander-2-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Furious 7 (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A Guilty Pleasure
Everyone needs a guilty pleasure and since 2001, audiences from across the globe have flocked to see The Fast & Furious franchise in all its over-the-top glory.
However, filming on the latest instalment, Fast & Furious 7, was delayed after the tragic death of lead actor Paul Walker, so does his untimely passing hurt the resulting movie?
Fast 7 continues after the events of Tokyo Drift and features the usual loveable rogues returning in their respective roles, including a beefed up part for Jason Statham who made a cameo in the sixth film.
Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Lucas Black and Ludacris all reprise their characters as they do battle against Statham’s villain, Deckard Shaw, who fans will remember is the brother of Owen Shaw from Fast 6.
The premise remains as simple as in previous instalments but continues the series’ trend for over-the-top action pieces that border on the ridiculous. Despite this, Fast 7 is the most watchable of the entire franchise with stunning locations, brilliant practical effects and surprising emotional heft.
James Wan directs what looks like a tourist information film for LA, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo but manages to keep the story flowing throughout the slightly overlong 137 minute running time. The fast cars and beautiful women are thrown at the audience thick and fast and the brakes aren’t applied until ten minutes before the end credits roll.
Thankfully, this is exactly what the series has become known for and the gorgeous settings are brilliantly juxtaposed with action-packed sequences including the much marketed mountain plane drop in Azerbaijan that is an absolute wonder to behold despite its use in the film’s trailers.
Vin Diesel’s Dom is what has grounded the series over the last 14 years but here it is Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner that we find the most intriguing and it’s really no surprise. Ever since his death, fans were worried how tasteful the film would be, but there is no need to worry.
Despite the action, the fights and the sunshine, Fast 7 manages to provide a rollercoaster of emotion as the cameras linger on Walker’s face or put him at the forefront of each scene. As the final 10 minutes approach it’s clear that the movie is going to end on a deeply gut-wrenching tribute to him and there were a few tears in the cinema.
Nevertheless, it’s obvious a film that focuses on supercars isn’t going to have much of a plot but director James Wan, who comes to the franchise for the first time, should be commended for fashioning a half-coherent story despite going into the production with numerous delays and seven films in.
Overall, Fast 7 is a great slice of popcorn entertainment and should definitely rank high up as one of the better films in the series. However, the tragic circumstances surrounding its production make it so much more.
Yes it won’t be winning any awards for originality or acting prowess, but its emotional resonance means it’s worth a watch for fans of the series and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/05/a-guilty-pleasure-fast-furious-7-review/
However, filming on the latest instalment, Fast & Furious 7, was delayed after the tragic death of lead actor Paul Walker, so does his untimely passing hurt the resulting movie?
Fast 7 continues after the events of Tokyo Drift and features the usual loveable rogues returning in their respective roles, including a beefed up part for Jason Statham who made a cameo in the sixth film.
Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Lucas Black and Ludacris all reprise their characters as they do battle against Statham’s villain, Deckard Shaw, who fans will remember is the brother of Owen Shaw from Fast 6.
The premise remains as simple as in previous instalments but continues the series’ trend for over-the-top action pieces that border on the ridiculous. Despite this, Fast 7 is the most watchable of the entire franchise with stunning locations, brilliant practical effects and surprising emotional heft.
James Wan directs what looks like a tourist information film for LA, Abu Dhabi and Tokyo but manages to keep the story flowing throughout the slightly overlong 137 minute running time. The fast cars and beautiful women are thrown at the audience thick and fast and the brakes aren’t applied until ten minutes before the end credits roll.
Thankfully, this is exactly what the series has become known for and the gorgeous settings are brilliantly juxtaposed with action-packed sequences including the much marketed mountain plane drop in Azerbaijan that is an absolute wonder to behold despite its use in the film’s trailers.
Vin Diesel’s Dom is what has grounded the series over the last 14 years but here it is Paul Walker’s Brian O’Conner that we find the most intriguing and it’s really no surprise. Ever since his death, fans were worried how tasteful the film would be, but there is no need to worry.
Despite the action, the fights and the sunshine, Fast 7 manages to provide a rollercoaster of emotion as the cameras linger on Walker’s face or put him at the forefront of each scene. As the final 10 minutes approach it’s clear that the movie is going to end on a deeply gut-wrenching tribute to him and there were a few tears in the cinema.
Nevertheless, it’s obvious a film that focuses on supercars isn’t going to have much of a plot but director James Wan, who comes to the franchise for the first time, should be commended for fashioning a half-coherent story despite going into the production with numerous delays and seven films in.
Overall, Fast 7 is a great slice of popcorn entertainment and should definitely rank high up as one of the better films in the series. However, the tragic circumstances surrounding its production make it so much more.
Yes it won’t be winning any awards for originality or acting prowess, but its emotional resonance means it’s worth a watch for fans of the series and newcomers alike.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/05/a-guilty-pleasure-fast-furious-7-review/