Then Marvel should expect the worst for 2018...
Ronda Rousey Wants To Play Ms. Marvel, Have Fun Telling Her No | CINEMABLEND
Your critique reminded me of: https://youtu.be/QwldwzlZCIQ
Movie review rant 2016
- Thread starter nanoboy
- Start date
- Status
Ronda Rousey Wants To Play Ms. Marvel, Have Fun Telling Her No | CINEMABLEND
Your critique reminded me of: https://youtu.be/QwldwzlZCIQ
I actually watched that one last night after posting my review.
I'm gonna watch it but I think it will really disappoint. Jai Courtney (blecch!) and Will Smith were bad choices I think, the former because he just sucks in every possible way and the latter because he isn't a "team member" sort of actor.
The look they've given Harley Quinn isn't at all like the comic, but she looks like my kind of girl so I approve.
I'm unsure about the Joker's look. I'll have an opinion on that after the movie.
Like I said before I think it looks interesting and I really hope it's good but I can't say I don't see where you're coming from. It's a shame Tom Hardy left the film (Jai Courtney took his place) as that would've been a great addition. I agree on Will Smith and I'm a bit worried that this whole movie will end up revolving around his character. Hopefully not, though.
I'm also a bit worried they won't actually keep the bad guys bad and will make them have redeeming qualities or good in them or something else that'll make them stink.
I really like Margo Robbie's portrayal of Harley from what the trailers have shown us so far. Definitely looking forward to her interactions with the Joker.
As for the Joker I'm not a bit fan of the new look but it seems Jared Leto is going to give us a good performance.
~Thylo
Depends on the comic- just take a look at New 52 HQ.
Otherwise, I agree with your assumption. And I still can't shake the feeling that DC is trying to copy Marvel Studios' edgy advertising style here while at the same style trying to retain the "dark & gritty" approach of the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy.
Just compare for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WI3hecGO_04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LIQ2-PZBC8
New Suicide Squad Trailer
I rest my case...
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
This was my review from a few months ago:
Fast and Furious 7 - 6/10
I am a huge fan of the franchise, but this instalment just didn't do it for me. It was over-the-top, unrealistic action, and at over 2hrs, it felt very very tedious. I only gave it an extra point in honour of Paul Walker.
Suicide Squad? I like the interpretation of Ms Quinn, so I'm in.
Fast and Furious 7 - 6/10
I am a huge fan of the franchise, but this instalment just didn't do it for me. It was over-the-top, unrealistic action, and at over 2hrs, it felt very very tedious. I only gave it an extra point in honour of Paul Walker.
Suicide Squad? I like the interpretation of Ms Quinn, so I'm in.
MASH
In 1968 Richard Hooker (a pen-name) published a book titled "MASH: A novel about three army doctors". Two years later it was released on the big screen as a feature film, and two years after that it was released on the small screen as a TV series.
Like many people, I grew up with the TV series, which ran for 11 seasons and became one of the most popular TV shows in the English-speaking world. So this has probably tainted my opinion of the movie a bit, but it's hard to gauge by how much. In short, I wasn't too taken by the movie.
The movie is about the 4077 MASH unit in Korea. Lt Col. Henry Blake has asked for a couple of extra surgeons and they arrive together in a jeep - Captn.s 'Hawkeye' Pierce and 'Duke' Forrest. They are billeted in the Bachelor Officers Quarters - later renamed The Swamp - with Maj. Frank Burns. When they first meet him he is teaching a Korean boy - Ho-Jon - to read, by having Ho-Jon read the bible. Burns is very religious, and his loud praying irritate his tent-mates. He's also incompetent as a doctor, and blames his mistakes on others.
Maj. Margaret O'Houlihan arrives on base as Chief Nurse and, being regular army, thinks that Burns is the ants-pants, and despite there not being any lead-up, they pair up together as an item.
Halfway through the film Hawkeye and Duke tell Henry the camp needs a chestcutter, and one appears in the form of 'Trapper' John MacIntyre. The three of them team up and antagonise Burns until he eventually attacks one of them, and then Burns gets kicked out of camp.
Brigadier-General Hammond has been running inter-hospital football games and been betting on the outcome - his team has been stacked with good players so he's been making a bit of money from the winnings. He convinces Henry to put forward a team for competition. Hawkeye suggests Henry request a neurosurgeon - Oliver Jones - for the camp; Jones used to play professional football, and was known as 'Spearchucker' because he used to throw the javelin prior to that. Needless to say, the 4077 wins the game and the pot.
The movie finishes with Hawkeye and Duke leaving together in a jeep after their deployment finishes.
This could have been a better movie, but there were several things I didn't like about it. Firstly, there didn't appear to be much of a plot, and the storyline was very thin - it was more a series of stories or events, unrelated to each other apart from the environment they were in. This might be the result of simply following the book to closely. There was also a number of scenes set in crowded places - the mess tent, the operating room etc. where it was hard to follow the conversation because of all the other conversations, or background conversations, which were at the same level as the main dialogue.
The acting was pretty good though; the movie stars Donald Sutherland (Hawkeye), Tom Skerritt (Duke), Robert Duvall (Burns), Sally Kellerman (O'Houlihan) and Elliott Gould (Trapper John).
And for a number of the actors this was their first movie: Gary Burghoff played Radar, and went on to play him in the TV series too; a young Rene Auberjonois played Father Mulcahy; Jo-anne Pflug appeared as Lt Dish; and John Schuck as 'Painless' Waldowski, the camp dentist.
However, my dim view of the movie was not shared by the critics - it won an Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical, and Robert Altman (the director), Sally Kellerman, Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland either won or were nominated for a number of other awards including a Palm D'or for Altman.
As I said at the start of this rant, my views of the movie may have been negatively biased due to 40 years exposure to the TV series, so I strongly suggest anyone else who's interested to have a look at the movie and see what they think.
5/10
Hix
In 1968 Richard Hooker (a pen-name) published a book titled "MASH: A novel about three army doctors". Two years later it was released on the big screen as a feature film, and two years after that it was released on the small screen as a TV series.
Like many people, I grew up with the TV series, which ran for 11 seasons and became one of the most popular TV shows in the English-speaking world. So this has probably tainted my opinion of the movie a bit, but it's hard to gauge by how much. In short, I wasn't too taken by the movie.
The movie is about the 4077 MASH unit in Korea. Lt Col. Henry Blake has asked for a couple of extra surgeons and they arrive together in a jeep - Captn.s 'Hawkeye' Pierce and 'Duke' Forrest. They are billeted in the Bachelor Officers Quarters - later renamed The Swamp - with Maj. Frank Burns. When they first meet him he is teaching a Korean boy - Ho-Jon - to read, by having Ho-Jon read the bible. Burns is very religious, and his loud praying irritate his tent-mates. He's also incompetent as a doctor, and blames his mistakes on others.
Maj. Margaret O'Houlihan arrives on base as Chief Nurse and, being regular army, thinks that Burns is the ants-pants, and despite there not being any lead-up, they pair up together as an item.
Halfway through the film Hawkeye and Duke tell Henry the camp needs a chestcutter, and one appears in the form of 'Trapper' John MacIntyre. The three of them team up and antagonise Burns until he eventually attacks one of them, and then Burns gets kicked out of camp.
Brigadier-General Hammond has been running inter-hospital football games and been betting on the outcome - his team has been stacked with good players so he's been making a bit of money from the winnings. He convinces Henry to put forward a team for competition. Hawkeye suggests Henry request a neurosurgeon - Oliver Jones - for the camp; Jones used to play professional football, and was known as 'Spearchucker' because he used to throw the javelin prior to that. Needless to say, the 4077 wins the game and the pot.
The movie finishes with Hawkeye and Duke leaving together in a jeep after their deployment finishes.
This could have been a better movie, but there were several things I didn't like about it. Firstly, there didn't appear to be much of a plot, and the storyline was very thin - it was more a series of stories or events, unrelated to each other apart from the environment they were in. This might be the result of simply following the book to closely. There was also a number of scenes set in crowded places - the mess tent, the operating room etc. where it was hard to follow the conversation because of all the other conversations, or background conversations, which were at the same level as the main dialogue.
The acting was pretty good though; the movie stars Donald Sutherland (Hawkeye), Tom Skerritt (Duke), Robert Duvall (Burns), Sally Kellerman (O'Houlihan) and Elliott Gould (Trapper John).
And for a number of the actors this was their first movie: Gary Burghoff played Radar, and went on to play him in the TV series too; a young Rene Auberjonois played Father Mulcahy; Jo-anne Pflug appeared as Lt Dish; and John Schuck as 'Painless' Waldowski, the camp dentist.
However, my dim view of the movie was not shared by the critics - it won an Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical, and Robert Altman (the director), Sally Kellerman, Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland either won or were nominated for a number of other awards including a Palm D'or for Altman.
As I said at the start of this rant, my views of the movie may have been negatively biased due to 40 years exposure to the TV series, so I strongly suggest anyone else who's interested to have a look at the movie and see what they think.
5/10
Hix
I saw the movie a long time ago (maybe twenty or thirty years ago), and I recall not liking it either. I think it may have been to do with the characters not being played by the actors I was used to (i.e. the one on the tv show). I guess the equivalent today would be like being used to watching the English version of The Office and then having to sit through the American version. You'd just be "no, this is all wrong."
I've been watching even more movies lately...
District B13 and District 13: Ultimatum
These two French movies pose the question "Parkour?" and answer it with a resounding "Parkour." The first movie was made in 2004 and is set in the far future of 2010 where the slums of Paris have been sealed behind a wall and the inhabitants left to develop amazing free-running and martial arts skills. The sequel, made in 2009, starts at the point the first one left off. Both movies have pretty much exactly the same plot - a free-running badass with no shirt from District B13 teams up with a free-running badass cop with no hair from outside District B13 to stop (non-free-running, non-badass) politicians blowing up District B13. Both of the movies are also totally awesome! Non-stop action and amazing chase scenes fill the movies from start to finish. I did like the second one better than the first but I'm not sure why. I think it was mainly because I watched the first one with badly-dubbed English (you know the sort, like in old Chinese martial arts movies where the English is spoken far too quickly with weird accents and poorly-chosen words), whereas the second one I watched with subtitles.
Captain America: Winter Soldier
I won't really do a review of this. I never read comics when I was a kid - I was a nerd, not a geek - so I don't blindly go "yay! Marvel! This is therefore a fantastic movie!" (Seriously, I know people just like that!). I don't like the Fantastic Four movies or Spiderman movies, I think the Hulk movies are boring, I only like the X-Men movies that are about Wolverine, I'm good with the Thor movies and Iron Man is alright. Batman is cool obviously. And, yes, I know those aren't all Marvel characters. However I did think this movie was really good. I was iffy on the first Captain America because it wasn't very good and it was plainly just a set-up for the Avengers movie. This one is also just a set-up for Avengers but it is also very good. And Scarlett Johanssen is in it, and that automatically makes it better than the first one. The main problem with all the stand-alone Avengers-characters movies, though, is that you're just left wondering, "Where are all the other Avengers, and why don't they all come help to save the planet? Are they all on strike except this one character? Is it a union thing? What's the deal? And why is Hawkeye an Avenger?"
MacGruber
Not a remake of tv's MacGyver, or even an "inspired by", this is instead a movie-length version of a Saturday Night Live skit mocking MacGyver. It's pretty funny, mostly. Some bits are just dumb, and the movie doesn't seem to know whether MacGruber is a genius or a halfwit. There are quite a few surprising actors/cameos/wrestlers in it. I don't really know whether to recommend it or not. I think you need to be in the right kind of mood to watch it, so some days you may like it and other days you may not.
District B13 and District 13: Ultimatum
These two French movies pose the question "Parkour?" and answer it with a resounding "Parkour." The first movie was made in 2004 and is set in the far future of 2010 where the slums of Paris have been sealed behind a wall and the inhabitants left to develop amazing free-running and martial arts skills. The sequel, made in 2009, starts at the point the first one left off. Both movies have pretty much exactly the same plot - a free-running badass with no shirt from District B13 teams up with a free-running badass cop with no hair from outside District B13 to stop (non-free-running, non-badass) politicians blowing up District B13. Both of the movies are also totally awesome! Non-stop action and amazing chase scenes fill the movies from start to finish. I did like the second one better than the first but I'm not sure why. I think it was mainly because I watched the first one with badly-dubbed English (you know the sort, like in old Chinese martial arts movies where the English is spoken far too quickly with weird accents and poorly-chosen words), whereas the second one I watched with subtitles.
Captain America: Winter Soldier
I won't really do a review of this. I never read comics when I was a kid - I was a nerd, not a geek - so I don't blindly go "yay! Marvel! This is therefore a fantastic movie!" (Seriously, I know people just like that!). I don't like the Fantastic Four movies or Spiderman movies, I think the Hulk movies are boring, I only like the X-Men movies that are about Wolverine, I'm good with the Thor movies and Iron Man is alright. Batman is cool obviously. And, yes, I know those aren't all Marvel characters. However I did think this movie was really good. I was iffy on the first Captain America because it wasn't very good and it was plainly just a set-up for the Avengers movie. This one is also just a set-up for Avengers but it is also very good. And Scarlett Johanssen is in it, and that automatically makes it better than the first one. The main problem with all the stand-alone Avengers-characters movies, though, is that you're just left wondering, "Where are all the other Avengers, and why don't they all come help to save the planet? Are they all on strike except this one character? Is it a union thing? What's the deal? And why is Hawkeye an Avenger?"
MacGruber
Not a remake of tv's MacGyver, or even an "inspired by", this is instead a movie-length version of a Saturday Night Live skit mocking MacGyver. It's pretty funny, mostly. Some bits are just dumb, and the movie doesn't seem to know whether MacGruber is a genius or a halfwit. There are quite a few surprising actors/cameos/wrestlers in it. I don't really know whether to recommend it or not. I think you need to be in the right kind of mood to watch it, so some days you may like it and other days you may not.
Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and that is all. Just those three.
Everybody's favourite thief, murderer and child molester, Indiana Jones was the reason I wanted to be an adventurer when I grew up, and... wait, no, that didn't come out right. I originally saw these three movies in chronological order, watching Temple of Doom (set in 1935) when it was released in cinemas in 1984, then several years later watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (set in 1936, released in 1981) on tv, and then watched Last Crusade (set in 1938) when it was released in 1989. Over the last three days I rewatched them in that same order, and they hold up brilliantly against modern movies - unlike modern movies which so often don't hold up to rewatching at all.
Temple of Doom is my favourite by a fair margin and Last Crusade my least favourite, but that just means Temple of Doom gets a ten out of ten, Raiders a nine out of ten, and Last Crusade an eight out of ten.
I think the reason I like Temple of Doom the best is because it is a self-contained story and it is fully-exotic - no USA, no Europe, just Asia. They leave China, end up accidentally in India and have no real choice but to carry through with the plot. The Willy Scott character is irritating as hell, and there's a comedy sidekick, but I can live with those. The other two movies seem more like Steven Spielberg's revenge fantasies against Nazi Germany, and with Last Crusade in particular I didn't think much of the "Young Indiana Jones" opening piece, I didn't particularly think Sean Connery was a good choice for Indy's father, and most of all I don't understand why they turned Marcus Brody into a blithering idiot.
Indiana Jones really is a terrible archaeologist though, a complete cowboy in the field. As soon as he finds a valuable archaeological site, he loots one item and then literally destroys the entire site. Then he sells the item to his local museum. If any other archaeologists want the item, he kills them in cold blood. He seems to have some sort of learning disability as well. In the first movie (chronologically) he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the sacred Sankara stones. In the second movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the Ark of the Covenant. In the third movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the Holy Grail. There's a bit of a pattern there I think. In the fourth movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he ... um, meets some aliens ... If a prairie dog could face-palm!
I think most older members reading this thread will have seen all the Indiana Jones movies, and if you haven't then shame on you. For younger people, if you haven't, then don't let Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (ugh!) put you off - go watch Temple of Doom right now!
Everybody's favourite thief, murderer and child molester, Indiana Jones was the reason I wanted to be an adventurer when I grew up, and... wait, no, that didn't come out right. I originally saw these three movies in chronological order, watching Temple of Doom (set in 1935) when it was released in cinemas in 1984, then several years later watched Raiders of the Lost Ark (set in 1936, released in 1981) on tv, and then watched Last Crusade (set in 1938) when it was released in 1989. Over the last three days I rewatched them in that same order, and they hold up brilliantly against modern movies - unlike modern movies which so often don't hold up to rewatching at all.
Temple of Doom is my favourite by a fair margin and Last Crusade my least favourite, but that just means Temple of Doom gets a ten out of ten, Raiders a nine out of ten, and Last Crusade an eight out of ten.
I think the reason I like Temple of Doom the best is because it is a self-contained story and it is fully-exotic - no USA, no Europe, just Asia. They leave China, end up accidentally in India and have no real choice but to carry through with the plot. The Willy Scott character is irritating as hell, and there's a comedy sidekick, but I can live with those. The other two movies seem more like Steven Spielberg's revenge fantasies against Nazi Germany, and with Last Crusade in particular I didn't think much of the "Young Indiana Jones" opening piece, I didn't particularly think Sean Connery was a good choice for Indy's father, and most of all I don't understand why they turned Marcus Brody into a blithering idiot.
Indiana Jones really is a terrible archaeologist though, a complete cowboy in the field. As soon as he finds a valuable archaeological site, he loots one item and then literally destroys the entire site. Then he sells the item to his local museum. If any other archaeologists want the item, he kills them in cold blood. He seems to have some sort of learning disability as well. In the first movie (chronologically) he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the sacred Sankara stones. In the second movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the Ark of the Covenant. In the third movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he does, after seeing the power of the Holy Grail. There's a bit of a pattern there I think. In the fourth movie he doesn't believe in religious magic but by the end of the movie he ... um, meets some aliens ... If a prairie dog could face-palm!
I think most older members reading this thread will have seen all the Indiana Jones movies, and if you haven't then shame on you. For younger people, if you haven't, then don't let Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (ugh!) put you off - go watch Temple of Doom right now!
I forgot to mention something else I liked about the movie - the theme. The movie opens with a couple of choppers brining in wounded to "Suicide is Painless", just like the TV series, but with lyrics and so it obviously goes for a few minutes and incorporates a lot of aerial views of the camp. Although none of the footage from the movie is used in the TV series, I think they may have used some of the unused footage because some shots are remarkably similar.
Hix
Have you watched any of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles episodes? Some of them are quite good and most of them were filmed on location around the world. There is an episode set in Kenya where he meets Teddy Roosevelt on his famous safari. There are several episodes set during World War 1 all across Europe and Africa. Most of the episodes are set against real historical events and settings. The one supernatural episode is where he fights Dracula in his castle. It's pretty freaky. There is also an episode with Harrison Ford as Indy flashing back to an adventure that he had as a kid.
yes, I watched all the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles when they originally aired, but I don't remember any of them at all.
Sabotage
I had never heard of this 2014 movie before but it had Arnold Schwarzenegger in it so I thought it would be worth watching. It definitely isn't your typical Arnold movie and I actually really liked it despite its obvious flaws - however after watching it I read some reviews to see what the general consensus was (always better to this after watching a movie I find, so you don't get pre-swayed by others opinions) and I discovered that it was resoundingly loathed. Phrases like "Arnold's worst movie" were common.
I totally get where all the hate comes from because the dialogue is terrible, the acting pretty rubbish all round, there is non-stop cursing used in a really self-conscious determined kind of way rather than naturally, and the forced camaraderie of the team is painfully fake. But I liked the way the movie wasn't an over-the-top actioner but tried to be more gritty and realistic - Arnold, for example, isn't a super cop but just a guy who shoots people.
In this movie Arnold plays a DEA agent who leads a team of undercover guys who look less like law-enforcement and more like rejects from Anarchy. There are a lot of well-known (albeit mostly lesser) actors in here, including a guy who I honestly thought was Fred Durst from Limp Bizkit right up until the movie ended and I googled the cast and discovered it was Sam Worthington. The resemblance is just uncanny!
Right at the start of the movie the team steal $10 million in cash from a cartel, but the money disappears and then the team members start getting killed off. The movie does a good job of keeping you guessing as to who is responsible (I was hoping it would be Arnold, that would have been a great "against-type" for him, but it wasn't) but really when each one dies you don't even care because they are all unlikeable characters who for most of the movie do nothing but swear, drink, fight and generally act like yahoos. I think that's the main problem with the movie, there's no investment in the characters - they're just there.
The end of the movie is bad as well, with all the "gritty realism" thrown out the window for a machine-gun-spraying car chase and then an escape by Schwarzenegger via what one can only assume must have been a teleporter.
Worth watching I reckon, but don't expect a great deal.
I had never heard of this 2014 movie before but it had Arnold Schwarzenegger in it so I thought it would be worth watching. It definitely isn't your typical Arnold movie and I actually really liked it despite its obvious flaws - however after watching it I read some reviews to see what the general consensus was (always better to this after watching a movie I find, so you don't get pre-swayed by others opinions) and I discovered that it was resoundingly loathed. Phrases like "Arnold's worst movie" were common.
I totally get where all the hate comes from because the dialogue is terrible, the acting pretty rubbish all round, there is non-stop cursing used in a really self-conscious determined kind of way rather than naturally, and the forced camaraderie of the team is painfully fake. But I liked the way the movie wasn't an over-the-top actioner but tried to be more gritty and realistic - Arnold, for example, isn't a super cop but just a guy who shoots people.
In this movie Arnold plays a DEA agent who leads a team of undercover guys who look less like law-enforcement and more like rejects from Anarchy. There are a lot of well-known (albeit mostly lesser) actors in here, including a guy who I honestly thought was Fred Durst from Limp Bizkit right up until the movie ended and I googled the cast and discovered it was Sam Worthington. The resemblance is just uncanny!
Right at the start of the movie the team steal $10 million in cash from a cartel, but the money disappears and then the team members start getting killed off. The movie does a good job of keeping you guessing as to who is responsible (I was hoping it would be Arnold, that would have been a great "against-type" for him, but it wasn't) but really when each one dies you don't even care because they are all unlikeable characters who for most of the movie do nothing but swear, drink, fight and generally act like yahoos. I think that's the main problem with the movie, there's no investment in the characters - they're just there.
The end of the movie is bad as well, with all the "gritty realism" thrown out the window for a machine-gun-spraying car chase and then an escape by Schwarzenegger via what one can only assume must have been a teleporter.
Worth watching I reckon, but don't expect a great deal.
I saw Sabotage and didn't mind it. Entertaining with the whodunit aspect.
You should also have a look at The Last Stand, also a Schwarzenegger, but with Forest Whittaker and Luis Guzman as well. Arnie is a sheriff in a small town near the Mexican border, and he has to deal with a drug cartel and kingpin when they come to town.
Hix
You should also have a look at The Last Stand, also a Schwarzenegger, but with Forest Whittaker and Luis Guzman as well. Arnie is a sheriff in a small town near the Mexican border, and he has to deal with a drug cartel and kingpin when they come to town.
Hix
yep, seen Last Stand. I think it was alright, I don't really remember it too well. It seemed entertaining enough.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I remember one episode where Indy was a child and he met Sigmund Freud at the dinner table, who proceeded to have a conversation about sex. Most bizarre, but not unexpected, I suppose.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
Dracula Untold - 6/10
It's a misnomer: we have heard the entire story before! Turks, Transylvania, Vlad the Impaler, Meena, etc. I still enjoyed this movie because it was packed with 1.5hrs of action. You can watch it, or just as easily give it a miss.
The Divide - 6/10
A nuclear bomb explodes in New York and 8 people from an apartment building seek shelter in the basement. The entire movie is set in the basement and explores the dynamic of how we lose all humanity when there is no hope. It was quite graphic and stomach churning, so it's not light viewing. Low budget, but worth a look.
After the Dark - 6/10
Another low budget, weird film. I enjoyed it though. High schoolers conduct a philosophical thought experiment on which 10 people they would allow into a nuclear bunker for 1yr to preserve humanity based on their skillset. The film cuts from the classroom to the imaginary bunker and back again. It was thought provoking at times - would you let in a surgeon with heart disease over a harpist with a pack of cards?
It's a misnomer: we have heard the entire story before! Turks, Transylvania, Vlad the Impaler, Meena, etc. I still enjoyed this movie because it was packed with 1.5hrs of action. You can watch it, or just as easily give it a miss.
The Divide - 6/10
A nuclear bomb explodes in New York and 8 people from an apartment building seek shelter in the basement. The entire movie is set in the basement and explores the dynamic of how we lose all humanity when there is no hope. It was quite graphic and stomach churning, so it's not light viewing. Low budget, but worth a look.
After the Dark - 6/10
Another low budget, weird film. I enjoyed it though. High schoolers conduct a philosophical thought experiment on which 10 people they would allow into a nuclear bunker for 1yr to preserve humanity based on their skillset. The film cuts from the classroom to the imaginary bunker and back again. It was thought provoking at times - would you let in a surgeon with heart disease over a harpist with a pack of cards?
Deadpool (2016)
Being a fan of the comic book character, I was really looking forward to watching this movie. Given how quickly the screening sold out at the local cinema (not to mention the current international box office results), it appears I might not have been the only one. And dare I say, my anticipation was justified.
The movie is funny, entertaining and had the audience rolling in the aisles. Think of it as the unfilial bastard child of an orgy involving "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", "Van Wilder", "Shoot 'Em Up" and pretty much any superhero origin story.
Most of the acting, cinematics and writing hit the mark, the story (typical "Boy meets girl, both experiment in pegging, Boy becomes Superhero to save girl"), the soundtrack, special effects/stunts served their purpose, and even the end credits were fun, too. Budget limitations were partly obvious, but actually improved the pacing of the movie and were hilariously alluded to.
Not everyone might fancy Deadpool's crude, 4th wall breaking, pubertal and violent humor, but for those who do, enjoy the ride. And the many lovely innuendos.
10/10 profane swearwords
Being a fan of the comic book character, I was really looking forward to watching this movie. Given how quickly the screening sold out at the local cinema (not to mention the current international box office results), it appears I might not have been the only one. And dare I say, my anticipation was justified.
The movie is funny, entertaining and had the audience rolling in the aisles. Think of it as the unfilial bastard child of an orgy involving "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", "Van Wilder", "Shoot 'Em Up" and pretty much any superhero origin story.
Most of the acting, cinematics and writing hit the mark, the story (typical "Boy meets girl, both experiment in pegging, Boy becomes Superhero to save girl"), the soundtrack, special effects/stunts served their purpose, and even the end credits were fun, too. Budget limitations were partly obvious, but actually improved the pacing of the movie and were hilariously alluded to.
Not everyone might fancy Deadpool's crude, 4th wall breaking, pubertal and violent humor, but for those who do, enjoy the ride. And the many lovely innuendos.
10/10 profane swearwords
- Status