Search
Search results
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated Six Crimson Cranes in Books
Jun 17, 2021
Wow!
Where do I start?
Wow!
In a kingdom which has banned magic and banished all demons to the Holy Mountains, Princess Shiori must hide her magical blood from those around her, in particular her six brothers, her mysterious stepmother and her father, the Emperor.
However, when a combination of magic and stubbornness derails Shiori’s betrothal ceremony the princess discovers that she is not the only family member hiding their gift. After spying on her stepmother, Shiori is convinced that her father’s wife is a demon and turns to her brothers…with disastrous consequences.
With her six brothers transformed into cranes, Shiori is alone, cast far away from the palace and forced to remain mute: for every word she utters, one brother will die! She is also unrecognisable, her magic is locked and she cannot reveal her past to anyone. Powerless, abandoned and mute- can Shiori save her six older brothers and return home to defeat her stepmother?
Shiori herself is an amazing protagonist. She is young, impulsive, stubborn but also has the biggest heart. Her love for her brothers (and food) is integral to her personality and the comfort she takes in the memories of her mother is beautiful.
Initially, Shiori’s life may appear to be a fairytale with extravagant robes and magnificent palaces. Maybe that is why Lim creates a fairytale-worthy curse? With a lost voice, a lost pink slipper and a city put to sleep, Elizabeth Lim certainly showcases some of the magic we saw in her Disney Twisted Tale novels.
Shiori’s journey to save her brothers is one of tremendous bravery and courage and it is along this path that the princess truly discovers her inner strength. She also matures immensely (it’s probably inevitable when your stepmother curses you) but Shiori experiences the hardships of the world around her, learns who to trust and realises that sometimes poison (or a curse) can be a “medicine in disguise”.
The supporting cast within Six Crimson Cranes are also incredible. Seryu the dragon prince with his ruby eyes and green hair clearly cares for Shiori. Will he try to sway her affections in book two? He will have to compete with Takkan, the loyal, picture-perfect prince who protected Shiori when no-one else did, long before he knew her true identity.
Shiori’s stepmother, Raikama, was possibly the most complex character. Despite only being present at the beginning and end of the novel, she spends 90% of the book as a villain – and the reader is fully on board with this! However, Lim’s ingenious use of Shiori’s faint memories help her piece together an unfathomable puzzle: why would Raikama curse the siblings instead of killing them? Is this linked to her stepmother’s magic and her mysterious past?
The world building in Six Crimson Cranes is magical. Without breaking the flow of the novel Lim perfectly creates the kingdom of Kiata in our minds, from the manicured grounds of the palace during the Summer Festival, with kites bobbing against azure skies, to the bleak but beautiful Iro, overlooked by Rabbit mountain, glittering in the light of the silver moon. Elizabeth Lim truly transports her readers to these beautiful but dangerous landscapes.
Six Crimson Cranes is a book which surpassed all my expectations. The world building is as magical as its fairy-tale undertones and the characters already feel like old friends. I don’t think I can wait another year for the sequel!
Thank you so so much to Netgalley for providing this amazing opportunity! I received a free digital copy of this book in exchange for an honest review…and now I’m off to pre-order the real thing!
Where do I start?
Wow!
In a kingdom which has banned magic and banished all demons to the Holy Mountains, Princess Shiori must hide her magical blood from those around her, in particular her six brothers, her mysterious stepmother and her father, the Emperor.
However, when a combination of magic and stubbornness derails Shiori’s betrothal ceremony the princess discovers that she is not the only family member hiding their gift. After spying on her stepmother, Shiori is convinced that her father’s wife is a demon and turns to her brothers…with disastrous consequences.
With her six brothers transformed into cranes, Shiori is alone, cast far away from the palace and forced to remain mute: for every word she utters, one brother will die! She is also unrecognisable, her magic is locked and she cannot reveal her past to anyone. Powerless, abandoned and mute- can Shiori save her six older brothers and return home to defeat her stepmother?
Shiori herself is an amazing protagonist. She is young, impulsive, stubborn but also has the biggest heart. Her love for her brothers (and food) is integral to her personality and the comfort she takes in the memories of her mother is beautiful.
Initially, Shiori’s life may appear to be a fairytale with extravagant robes and magnificent palaces. Maybe that is why Lim creates a fairytale-worthy curse? With a lost voice, a lost pink slipper and a city put to sleep, Elizabeth Lim certainly showcases some of the magic we saw in her Disney Twisted Tale novels.
Shiori’s journey to save her brothers is one of tremendous bravery and courage and it is along this path that the princess truly discovers her inner strength. She also matures immensely (it’s probably inevitable when your stepmother curses you) but Shiori experiences the hardships of the world around her, learns who to trust and realises that sometimes poison (or a curse) can be a “medicine in disguise”.
The supporting cast within Six Crimson Cranes are also incredible. Seryu the dragon prince with his ruby eyes and green hair clearly cares for Shiori. Will he try to sway her affections in book two? He will have to compete with Takkan, the loyal, picture-perfect prince who protected Shiori when no-one else did, long before he knew her true identity.
Shiori’s stepmother, Raikama, was possibly the most complex character. Despite only being present at the beginning and end of the novel, she spends 90% of the book as a villain – and the reader is fully on board with this! However, Lim’s ingenious use of Shiori’s faint memories help her piece together an unfathomable puzzle: why would Raikama curse the siblings instead of killing them? Is this linked to her stepmother’s magic and her mysterious past?
The world building in Six Crimson Cranes is magical. Without breaking the flow of the novel Lim perfectly creates the kingdom of Kiata in our minds, from the manicured grounds of the palace during the Summer Festival, with kites bobbing against azure skies, to the bleak but beautiful Iro, overlooked by Rabbit mountain, glittering in the light of the silver moon. Elizabeth Lim truly transports her readers to these beautiful but dangerous landscapes.
Six Crimson Cranes is a book which surpassed all my expectations. The world building is as magical as its fairy-tale undertones and the characters already feel like old friends. I don’t think I can wait another year for the sequel!
Thank you so so much to Netgalley for providing this amazing opportunity! I received a free digital copy of this book in exchange for an honest review…and now I’m off to pre-order the real thing!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Peterloo was a daunting prospect even before getting into the screen. 154 minutes... that's 2 hours and 34 minutes of a very bleak piece of history.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
If you've read some of my comments before about real-life event films you'll know that I struggle with the fact that it feels like I'm judging the subject rather than the film itself. Peterloo is no exception.
There is a truly impressive cast bringing this story to life. Lots of faces you'll recognise from one thing or another. I did have to stop myself from exclaiming out loud "Jack Boswell!" when he popped up and that certainly wasn't the only pointing at the screen moment. Performances all round were very good, whether they be someone to sympathise with, or someone to loathe.
You use the word massacre in the description of a film and you know it isn't going to be an easy watch. Unfortunately it was a difficult watch for a completely different reason. This film didn't seem accessible at all. You have to applaud them for wanting to bring a whole story to the screen without cutting lots of pieces out. The timeline seems to generally flow well and it did feel like we were getting the whole journey from start to finish.
Here's where I have a major problem.
The sheer length of this film. While I don't doubt that all the bits were important it honestly felt very repetitive. That coupled with the language made it a very dry watch. I nearly gave up and left. The couple behind me did. Which was actually a godsend because once they did I didn't feel so bad about having to move about to stop myself dozing off. This could easily have been 45 minutes shorter than it was, sacrificing something from the film would have given it a quicker pace to draw you.
What upset me most about this is that the powerful ending that was done so well felt entirely swamped by the long and drawn out beginning. When the scene unfolds you know what's coming but there's no way to prepare yourself for what they've created on the screen. In that moment I was thankful that I'd managed to stick it out just to get to that point. It was done in such a way that you completely understood what was happening and it came with an emotion that brought this tragedy shockingly to life.
Sadly that moment was stolen by this film's villain, time. This scene just kept going. There was a moment where it felt like it had come to a close... and yet it went on. I wasn't entirely surprised with that after seeing the beginning of the film, but I was disappointed. To add insult to injury we were given a brief dialogue at the end that felt very much like an after thought. And with that, I was done.
This is yet another film I've seen recently that felt like it would have been more suited to a multi episode TV series. It had very clear parts and I can't help but think that it would have benefited from being broken up into more manageable sections.
What you should do
Unless you're a massive history enthusiast I can't recommend this one to you. I really feel like your time would be better spent researching the story on the internet or finding a book in the library about it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It's difficult to want for anything in this period of history, but there's no denying that I would love to give that printer a go.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Oct 1, 2019
Another DC Win
When a foster kid runs into an ancient wizard, he suddenly finds that he can turn himself into a superhero by uttering a simple word: Shazam! DC has run into a fair share of buzz saws when it comes to making quality movies, but chalk one up on the positive side with this one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 7
I loved all the characters for the most part. Billy Batson (Asher Angel) is a cool kid with attitude merely trying to find his place in the world. You don’t feel sorry for him; even though he is definitely mistreated, he’s also a bit of a butthead as most kids that age are. He’s met in his new foster home by a fun group of kids that will give you a number of reasons to laugh. His roommate Freddy (Jack Dylan Grazer) had me cracking up throughout. He wasn’t just there for comic relief though as I appreciated the more sensitive moments. Big shout-out to Zachary Levi as well playing the role of the superhero Shazam. It’s fun watching Shazam learn his powers just like a kid would because, well, he’s a kid.
Yes, these characters are great. You know who wasn’t great? Dr. Thaddeus Sivana (Mark Strong). Felt way too over-the-top for me. I didn’t really understand his motivation either or, rather, I understood but just didn’t think it was enough for him to go as bonkers as he did. He honestly almost ruined the movie for me singlehandedly but I got ahold of myself and remembered I was having a good time.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
While I was mostly impressed with the quality of the visuals, I felt like they took a shortcut in a handful of spots, particularly with the opposition. The villain and his henchmen didn’t quite look as up to par as Shazam. The man of the hour, however, was on point. Shift changes were smooth and fluid. I enjoyed watching him steadily come into his own as a superhero as the camera captured each new ability one-by-one.
Conflict: 8
The action was steady but uneven. You’re watching Shazam slowly develop his powers and it’s great at times, but it’s not without a bit of lag. Things definitely heat up more towards the back half of the movie than in the beginning. When the action does go down, the battles that unfold are solid and entertaining.
Entertainment Value: 8
While the action isn’t always at its strongest, the movie makes up for it with some solid comedic moments. We go to movies to have a good time and, I gotta say, I had a blast watching Shazam! With a heartfelt story that gives you a reason to root for the protagonist and delightful side characters, entertaining is beyond a fair word for this movie.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
A few issues here I can’t overlook. My biggest problem were the coincidental occurrences that happened for the sake of advancing the story. For this movie to be mostly great, I think it cheated its way through some parts, parts which definitely could have been handled better. I am never a fan of that as it’s just lazy. Definitely could have been better.
Resolution: 10
Couldn’t have asked for a better ending. If the entirety of the movie had been more like this, we might have a classic on our hands. It ties up everything in a great bow and gives you yet another reason to love the movie.
Overall: 84
Because of my past experience with DC, I went in with low expectations. I was pleasantly surprised and happy with how much I enjoyed this movie. If DC can continue to make quality movies like Shazam!, they may be due for a comeback!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A “Good Guy” meting out justice in a bad way.
There’s something really satisfying about seeing our ‘hero’ Robert McCall giving bad ‘uns a bloody nose (and far worse) as immediate punishment for a crime committed. My parent’s pre-war generation would wax lyrical about the days when police officers or teachers could give a kid a “good box around the ears” as a lesson for a minor infringement. (“Ah, the good old days…. That’ll learn ‘im”!). But equally there’s also the queasy feeling here that this is a vigilante being judge, jury and executioner. Thank GOODNESS then that it’s Denzel Washington and he’s OBVIOUSLY a good guy that will never get it wrong!
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Washington returns here as the righter of wrongs, now working as a Lyft driver in Boston (clearly Uber either lost the bidding war or they were not considered to be as cool a brand anymore). Through his job he crosses paths with various troubled souls and is often able to help: sometimes with just an encouraging word; sometimes with more physical activity! By way of validating his good guy credentials, he also takes under his wing Miles (Ashton Sanders) – a local black kid at risk of being dragged into the Boston gang scene.
But this is all window-dressing for the main plot, involving bad guys (for reasons that escaped me) tidying up a lot of CIA loose ends in Brussels in a very brutal way. In charge of the investigation is Robert’s ex-boss Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) and to help out further Robert has to ‘reappear’ to his ex-partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal). As in the first film, events lead to an explosive western-style showdown.
Directed again by Antoine Fuqua, the film oozes style from the impressive opening shots of a Turkish train, where the cinematography by Bourne-regular Oliver Wood is exceptional. The action scenes are well-executed, and includes a superb science experiment that will puzzle any viewer who thinks “hang on a minute – flour doesn’t burn”!
Reading again my review of the original film, I went off on a rant about extreme screen violence in sub-18 certificate films. There is certainly – as the British film censors (the BBFC) describe it – “strong violence” in this film, with some pretty brutal murder scenes. If anything though I thought the violence was a little less gratuitous this time around, which I welcome.
Denzel is the greatest asset of this film though. He acts up a hurricane (literally), and without his calm and powerful presence at the heart of the film, this would just be A.N.Other generic thriller. It’s also great that this time around the excellent Melissa Leo gets more screen time, as does her husband played by Bill “Independence Day” Pullman. (Is it just me that gets Mr Pullman confused with the late Mr Paxton? I spent all of this film thinking “Oh how sad” though all his scenes before I realised I was grieving for the wrong guy!). In terms of mistaken identity, this film has another in that a key villain Resnik looks far too much like Mark Wahlberg, but is actually Canadian actor Jonathan Scarfe.
Where the film stumbled for me was in having too many parallel “good deed” sub-plots. One in particular – you’ll know the one – feels completely superfluous, beggars belief and could have been excised completely for the DVD deleted scenes.
Do you need to have seen the first film? No, not really. There is exposition about McCall’s back-story, but if this was covered in the first film then I had completely forgotten it. It certainly didn’t detract from this as a stand-alone film.
A cut-above the norm, Washington’s solid performance makes this an entertaining night out at the flicks.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Hunt on the edge… again.
2015’s “MI: Rogue Nation” was one of my favourite films of that year, so of all the summer blockbusters this was the one I was most looking forward to. Was I delighted? It’s a slightly qualified “YES!”.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
The film neatly follows on from Rogue Nation with arch terrorist-in-need-of-a-razor Solomon Lane (Sean Harris) being extraordinarily renditioned (probably not a valid phrase!) between multiple countries who want to torture/punish him. But his followers – “The Apostles” – are still active and on the trail of plutonium that could devestate key sites, with religious centres being the top of the target list. Since Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) originally caught Lane, IMF Director Hunley (Alec Baldwin) despatches Hunt to intercept the plutonium.
But CIA director Erica Sloan (Angela Bassett) has no faith in the IMF, or trust that the organisation has not been infiltrated, and she insists that her ‘heavy’ August Walker (Henry Cavill) goes along for the ride. But they are not the only parties in play, for Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) is also involved. But who is she working for?
What makes these films a cut above your average action adventure is the stunt work, with the knowledge that Cruise is at the centre of the action. In “Skyscraper” you KNOW Dwayne Johnson is standing on the ‘edge’ in front of a big green screen. Similarly here you KNOW Cruise is standing on the edge of the Tate Modern tower – probably without a safety line – as the camera goes 360 degrees around him. This makes all the difference to the adrenalin count.
There are some outstanding set pieces in the film, with extraordinarily spectacular shots from a ‘halo jump’ and a dramatic helicopter finale. But it is some of the smaller stuff that really impresses: a dramatic edge-of-the-seat car and motorbike chase through central Paris is one of the most impressive and terrifying things I’ve seen on film for many years; and Cruise’s literally bone-crunching run through London is also extremely exciting, with Simon Pegg adding good humour in his regular role of Benji. By the way, series regulars Ving Rhames, as Luther, and Michelle Monaghan, as Hunt’s ex-wife Julia, also make welcome returns but Jeremy Renner is missing this time.
Tom Cruise at 56 (he’s just 15 months younger than I am, damn it!) will eventually meet a Roger Moore-like Bond cliff when his Hunt role is no longer credible. But he’s not there yet! Rebecca Ferguson is again outstanding as Faust and as a newcomer in a similar role Vanessa Kirby (memorable as Princess Margaret in “The Crown”) impresses as the “White Widow” – someone with a familial link to a villain from the past!
Unusually, for a film series which has traditionally been kept fresh by changing directors and composers at each turn, Christopher McQuarrie (“Edge of Tomorrow“, “The Mummy“) returns following “Rogue Nation“, and he also writes the screenplay. The composing baton is handed over this time though to Lorne Balfe (“Churchill“, “Terminator: Genisys“) and for me this was a bit of a step down from the “Rogue Nation” soundtrack by Joe Kraemer which I really enjoyed.
Is it sufficiently fresh though? Let’s be clear here, I was enormously entertained throughout, and this should be near the top of your summer watch list. But it did ultimately feel at times a little like a light retread of “Rogue Nation“. Some of the stunts – notably the Paris and London scenes as above – were a step up for me, but there are some annoyances in McQuarrie’s script (see the spoiler section below the trailer), so for me the rating plateaus at the same as “Rogue Nation“.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The length of time it’s taken me to catch this one at the cinema belies my lukewarm interest in the material: I’m not a ‘fan boy’ for either Marvel or DC properties. As it turns out, writer/director David “Fury” Ayer’s Suicide Squad is just plain frustrating in cinematic terms.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
The story concerns the efforts of Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) to assemble – for reasons that make almost zero sense! – the ‘worse of the worst’ out of US prisons to form a fighting force to combat the perceived threat of an “anti-Superman” villain that *might* appear in the future.
SUICIDE SQUAD
Viola Davis wondering Why? Just Why?
Among these super-villains are Deadshot (Will Smith) and Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). Harley is the girlfriend of The Joker (Jared Leto) and they would be a great match on Match.com since both are several sandwiches short of a picnic.
Waller assembles her motley crew. Unfortunately, another of the super-villains is June Moon aka “The Enchantress” (Cara Delevingne, her of the scary eyebrows) – an ancient God-like being that has possessed June and who has her/its own agenda that threatens the whole world.
So why is this movie so frustrating? Because for all its inane silliness the film does have its fair share of scenes that stick in the mind. I’ve seen comment that Jared Leto’s much-vaunted Joker is peripheral: a cameo only on screen for a few minutes. But I didn’t find that… or at least his scenes were sufficiently memorable to seem much more substantial. The madness portrayed here is truly quite disturbing and threatening. Many of Leto’s scenes – such as the one with The Joker lying on the floor surrounded by weapons – are artfully done.
Margot Robbie’s Quinn although extremely sexualized – which will not be to the liking of some, but appeal to many male viewers – adds enormous charisma to her role. Will Smith also does his best with the material he has to inject some emotional heft into the father/daughter sub-plot.
Unfortunately this is all done against a fractured and frankly nonsensical story with inconsistencies and loose ends too numerous to list. (Oh, OK, I’ll do a few):
A super-being dispatches armies and nukes from hundred of miles away, yet can’t swat a couple of inconvenient humans at 10 paces?
A large early part of the film is filled with backstories (which I don’t necessarily object to for context) but here they are done in an extremely patchy manner: a number of the characters are sketched out so lightly that they might as well be wearing the red Star Trek shirts!
Waller’s motivations (and certainly her sociopathic actions at some points in the plot) are nebulous and don’t bear scrutiny. Why exactly does she thing a ‘bloke who can shoot well’ can do diddly-squat against a super-being spewing gravity defying electrical displays on the other side of the city?
Is this really a ‘Dirty Dozen’? Many of the super-villains seem to be not so bad after all… you know… with consciences and everything…. (I’m sure you could find ten times worse down behind Southampton docks on a Friday night).
And while some of the cinematography (Roman Vasyanov, “Fury”) and lighting is memorable, there are some cinema basics (like dark subtitles on a dark background) that seem just plain careless.
With a huge BvS quotient of 0.7 this should really have been much better. To put it another way, you could have made ten of last week’s 4-Fad film “The Shallows” for the cost of this (and stuck a better ending on it with the change).
Memorable visuals, but not a memorable film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) in Movies
Jul 8, 2022
Good Character Arcs for Thor and Jane
Under the Writing and Direction of Taika Waititi, the THOR franchise portion of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has gone in a more comedic, rather than Shakespearean, direction and THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER proves that this direction is a smart one both for THOR and for the overall health and diversity of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as well.
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Chris Hemsworth, of course, as the titular THOR, Love and Thunder shows our demi-god hero at a crossroads in his life and career. Into this world walks his ex-girlfriend, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and chaos ensues as both are chasing the god-killer, Gorr (Christian Bale).
This sort of premise set-up (and the fact that Hemsworth is playing THOR for the 8th time), could have fallen victim to banality and dullness, but under the watchful eye of Waititi (Writer/Director of the severely under-rated JOJO RABBIT), this THOR soars with the best of them and develops the overall arc and (eventual) pay-off of both Thor’s and Jane’s arcs precisely and (upon retrospection) in the only satisfying way that they could have ended. So, kudos needs to be given to Waititi for walking this tightrope and sticking the landing.
Hemsworth, of course, is charming and buff as Thor and balances the action, romantic drama and comedic portions of this story well. Waititi brings more than just comic relief (though he has plenty of that as well) as the voice of Thor’s buddy KORG, while Christian Bale is more than just one-dimensional (how can this actor be anything but interesting) as the main villain of this piece..
What surprised me the most in this film is the portrayal of Jane Foster by Portman and how her character becomes the “female Thor” (that’s not a spoiler, it’s in the trailers) and does NOT become just “Thor’s girlfriend”. Portman has made no secret of her distaste of how her character became the femme fatale in THOR: THE DARK WORLD and refused to return to this character previously. Obviously, Waititi has been able to come up with a storyline - and an arc - that would interest an actress like Portman to return and Natalie nails it. She looked bright-eyed and energized by this part and by where her character goes in this film.
And then there is Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie. This character is a strong part of Thor’s story - and the story of the survivors of Asgaard (their destroyed homeworld). Thompson owns this part and is engaging and interesting to watch on-screen. Out of necessity, her character and story play a supporting role to the main Thor/Jane story, so her character didn’t get quite enough to do for my tastes. But it did whet my appetite for a stand-alone Valkyrie film (make that happen Marvel).
There are cameos and extended-cameos galore in this film - as well as TWO end credits scenes - so to mention them would be to spoil them, except to say that the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY play a pivotal role, but for those who came to see a GUARDIANS film, you’ll have to wait for GUARDIANS 3 to come out next year - this is a THOR film.
A very satisfying entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and while not a perfect film (it does try too hard, at times, to mine the same, surprise comic gold of THOR: RAGNAROK), THOR: LOVE AND THUNDER delivers a stand-alone Thor story that drives both the characters of Thor and Jane forward in a smart, intelligent way…and when is the last time the words “smart and intelligent” were used with a comic book film)?
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)