Search
Martin Scorsese recommended Contempt (1963) in Movies (curated)
Sin City (2005)
7.5
Rate It
Movie Watch
Sin City (also known as Frank Miller's Sin City)[3] is a 2005 American neo-noir crime anthology film...
Sin City Frank Miller Robert Rodriguez Comic book
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Medical Neurobiology
Book
Medical Neurobiology, Second Edition continues the work of Dr. Peggy Mason as one of the few single...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Directed by Steven Spielberg, Ready Player One is a fast paced action film full of fun pop culture nostalgia. Set in a dystopian 2045, the world’s number one resource is the Oasis. A virtual reality world where everyone either works or uses to escape the doldrums of everyday slum/trailer park life of Columbus Ohio.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
When the creator of the Oasis, James Holiday (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves a Willy Wonka like challenge in the Oasis, where whoever is the first to find Holiday’s “Easter egg,” will inherit control of the Oasis and the fortune that comes with it. Naturally, we go on a “Goonies” like adventure where we follow the hunt for the egg through our hero Wade Watts/Parzival (Tye Sheridan) and his crew of friends Aech (Lena Waithe) and Art3mis (Olivia Cooke). They hope to keep the Oasis free for everyone and make it so no one will have to slave away working to pay off debt in the Oasis. Meanwhile, the wicked corporation, led by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) that will do anything to win control of the Oasis as a way to make money and enslave people. Got that? Good. Because the film pretty much explains this in the first fifteen minutes or so. After that, the film becomes a fast paced adventure race to find each of the three key’s needed to find Holiday’s egg and win the challenge.
Since the majority of the film takes place in the Oasis, we find ourselves mostly watching animation and voice acting. The cast does an excellent job delivering their lines combined with top tier animation. These two things are melded so well, at times you barley even realize you are watching animation. Additionally, the Oasis is packed full with visual pop culture references and gags. Whether its video game or comic characters, a reference to a scene from a movie, soundtrack, or even certain famous sound cues, you will find yourself constantly looking at everything on screen and smiling with amusement. Even if you do not know the references very well, the film moves at a fast enough pace through each part of the adventure, you never feel alienated or as if you are out of the loop.
For those who are wondering, then film differs greatly from the hit 2011 novel by the same name, in that it is able to create a version of this story that is entirely its own. Thus it leaves the “book is better” conversations to the side. Instead, the book could be seen as a complement to the movie, for those looking for more depth in character, the real world of 2045 and the Oasis. I was surprised how much I enjoyed the changes from the book in the film, and yet, I want to re-read the novel to get more out of this rich environment.
In the end, I’d have to say that Ready Player One is worth the full price of admission. There is something for everyone to enjoy in this fun, fast paced, action film.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Camelot Burning (Metal & Lace, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I don't know much about Arthurian Lore it's probably one of the only story I've never read in it's original form aside from the original Grimm Brothers' Fairy Tales (but those are horrifying, so I'm not even going to bother). I somehow doubt that Magic Tree House who made Morgan LeFay a harmless fly or Wizard101's Avalonian world even counts, except for maybe the latter being used as visual aid. :p
But personally that's sort of the thrill in reading a retelling without reading the original one: no judging or comparing it's a mostly complete blank slate.
Camelot Burning follows Vivienne, a lady-in-waiting and Merlin's Apprentice, who wants a way out of Camelot's way of life. She even has a plan hatched at least until Morgan Le Fay enters the picture and she has to stay to build a weapon that could ultimately save Camelot.
Merlin is actually a fun character am I weird to say that I found him drunk yet wise? It's not an easy combo since most drunk people act... well, not wise at all. While I'm not exactly warm and fuzzy with the other characters yet, Merlin is a winner.
There's a very interesting way with magic Rose introduces. Usually when it comes to magic, the price is something minor or huge, depending on whatever is asked very similar to karma (or fate or etc.). Here though... it's the ultimate price if you use magic too much: *cues ominous music* your soul. That's like selling your soul to the devil! Unless you're a creepy villain who wants to take over the world, that's not usually the ultimate price. Minor = minor payback. Major = major payback. No ifs buts or wait, what's after that? o_O
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dV7rlbVhpPk/UyjGVWubEkI/AAAAAAAACyA/ngeF1DAiEmk/s1600/tumblr_m5x9n1xf3D1rqfhi2o1_500.gif"; height="143" width="200">
Behind the Blog Tidbit: Camelot Burning was one of those novels who got a neutral rating (rawly speaking). I would have rounded up to a 4.5 rather than a 4, but I chose not to for a few reasons:
~ Too predictable It could just be me, but I guessed that <spoiler>Vivienne was the coordinates to Avalon and Morgan Le Fay was acting innocent as a distraction.</spoiler>
~ Too much technicalities I felt like I was reading a foreign language, and that was not the words used in magic. It all felt really confusing.
~ It said The End.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsFMKEdcrBc/UyjG4_6Sj3I/AAAAAAAACyM/Q0tKlJ9xOLw/s1600/th.jpg"; height="155" width="200">
That last bullet didn't play a major impact. It's just a minor peeve, especially when it's the first novel in the series.
I fully enjoyed reading Kathryn Rose's debut novel. Camelot Burning takes a refreshing and unique spin on Arthurian lore, or more accurately Arthurian + Fantasy + Steampunk.
-----------------
Advance Review Copy provided by Flux for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/arc-review-camelot-burning-by-kathryn-rose.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
But personally that's sort of the thrill in reading a retelling without reading the original one: no judging or comparing it's a mostly complete blank slate.
Camelot Burning follows Vivienne, a lady-in-waiting and Merlin's Apprentice, who wants a way out of Camelot's way of life. She even has a plan hatched at least until Morgan Le Fay enters the picture and she has to stay to build a weapon that could ultimately save Camelot.
Merlin is actually a fun character am I weird to say that I found him drunk yet wise? It's not an easy combo since most drunk people act... well, not wise at all. While I'm not exactly warm and fuzzy with the other characters yet, Merlin is a winner.
There's a very interesting way with magic Rose introduces. Usually when it comes to magic, the price is something minor or huge, depending on whatever is asked very similar to karma (or fate or etc.). Here though... it's the ultimate price if you use magic too much: *cues ominous music* your soul. That's like selling your soul to the devil! Unless you're a creepy villain who wants to take over the world, that's not usually the ultimate price. Minor = minor payback. Major = major payback. No ifs buts or wait, what's after that? o_O
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dV7rlbVhpPk/UyjGVWubEkI/AAAAAAAACyA/ngeF1DAiEmk/s1600/tumblr_m5x9n1xf3D1rqfhi2o1_500.gif"; height="143" width="200">
Behind the Blog Tidbit: Camelot Burning was one of those novels who got a neutral rating (rawly speaking). I would have rounded up to a 4.5 rather than a 4, but I chose not to for a few reasons:
~ Too predictable It could just be me, but I guessed that <spoiler>Vivienne was the coordinates to Avalon and Morgan Le Fay was acting innocent as a distraction.</spoiler>
~ Too much technicalities I felt like I was reading a foreign language, and that was not the words used in magic. It all felt really confusing.
~ It said The End.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lsFMKEdcrBc/UyjG4_6Sj3I/AAAAAAAACyM/Q0tKlJ9xOLw/s1600/th.jpg"; height="155" width="200">
That last bullet didn't play a major impact. It's just a minor peeve, especially when it's the first novel in the series.
I fully enjoyed reading Kathryn Rose's debut novel. Camelot Burning takes a refreshing and unique spin on Arthurian lore, or more accurately Arthurian + Fantasy + Steampunk.
-----------------
Advance Review Copy provided by Flux for review
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/arc-review-camelot-burning-by-kathryn-rose.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Splintered (Splintered, #1)
7.9
Rate It
Book
This stunning debut captures the grotesque madness of a mystical under-land, as well as a girl’s...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Dec 28, 2018
The first "true" comic book movie
The animated feature, SPIDERMAN: INTO THE SPIDER-VERSE, is the first, true "comic-book" film I have ever seen.
"But wait", you say, "How about the Marvel films? Or the DC Universe films? Or the X-Men or DeadPool? Aren't they Comic-Book films?".
I would have to answer - "no". At least not in the same way. All of those properties are films that are BASED on comic-books. Spider-verse, brilliantly, is a comic-book brought to life. It includes scenes that look like pages of a comic book (or graphic novel). It uses thought bubbles,sound effect words and abstract images. The characters are distorted and when other versions of the Spider-Verse are scene (not a spoiler: it's in the title), they are designed in a different graphic style.
Credit for this unique vision/type of film must start with the writers, Phil Lord (The Lego Movie) and Rodney Rothman (22 Jump Street) as well as Directors Bob Persischetti (in his Directing debut) and Rothman (again). These 3 brought to the screen a dazzling visual storytelling vision that is engrossing and interesting and (I am sure) will become richer and richer the more that this film is viewed.
This vision must have been apparent from the "get-go" as these 3 were able to load some top-notch voice talent into this film - Mahershala Ali, Hailee Steinfeld, Jake Johnson, Lily Tomlin(!), Zoe Kravitz, John Mulaney, Kathryn Hahn, Liev Schrieber, Chris Pine and good ol' Nicholas Cage all bring their "A" game to the voices, presenting (instantly) interesting, distinct characters to this interesting, distinct world.
The action of this film moves at a fast-pace, but not so fast that you get lost and the emotions of the film are strong, so the "slow" scenes are just as well paced and don't seem too slow.
I see alot of films, and it is rare when I am struck with how "unusual" a film is. And this one IS unusual - in a very good way. I was thoroughly entertained throughout and I cannot wait to see this film again to catch some of the things I missed the first time through and have a deeper and richer experience for knowing what is to come.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars (yes, it's that good!) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"But wait", you say, "How about the Marvel films? Or the DC Universe films? Or the X-Men or DeadPool? Aren't they Comic-Book films?".
I would have to answer - "no". At least not in the same way. All of those properties are films that are BASED on comic-books. Spider-verse, brilliantly, is a comic-book brought to life. It includes scenes that look like pages of a comic book (or graphic novel). It uses thought bubbles,sound effect words and abstract images. The characters are distorted and when other versions of the Spider-Verse are scene (not a spoiler: it's in the title), they are designed in a different graphic style.
Credit for this unique vision/type of film must start with the writers, Phil Lord (The Lego Movie) and Rodney Rothman (22 Jump Street) as well as Directors Bob Persischetti (in his Directing debut) and Rothman (again). These 3 brought to the screen a dazzling visual storytelling vision that is engrossing and interesting and (I am sure) will become richer and richer the more that this film is viewed.
This vision must have been apparent from the "get-go" as these 3 were able to load some top-notch voice talent into this film - Mahershala Ali, Hailee Steinfeld, Jake Johnson, Lily Tomlin(!), Zoe Kravitz, John Mulaney, Kathryn Hahn, Liev Schrieber, Chris Pine and good ol' Nicholas Cage all bring their "A" game to the voices, presenting (instantly) interesting, distinct characters to this interesting, distinct world.
The action of this film moves at a fast-pace, but not so fast that you get lost and the emotions of the film are strong, so the "slow" scenes are just as well paced and don't seem too slow.
I see alot of films, and it is rare when I am struck with how "unusual" a film is. And this one IS unusual - in a very good way. I was thoroughly entertained throughout and I cannot wait to see this film again to catch some of the things I missed the first time through and have a deeper and richer experience for knowing what is to come.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars (yes, it's that good!) and you can take this to the Bank(ofMarquis)
VT
Vamping the Stage: Female Voices of Asian Modernities
Andrew N. Weintraub, Bart Barendregt, Christine Reiko Yano and Yifen Tsau Beus
Book
The emergence of modernity has typically focused on Western male actors and privileged politics and...