Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Just a blast to watch.
I mean, it's an MCU film, so you can always count on the movie being fun, quippy and well made. This new Spider-Man film is no different, and that's certainly not a bad thing.
It's not a groundbreaking movie, and overall I didn't think it was as good as the first two Raimi films, nor last years Captain America: Civil War, which introduced Tom Holland's portrayal of Peter Parker, but I felt that it was a step above Spider-Man 3 (which is still good), and both of The Amazing Spider-Man films (which are far from good).
Tom Holland is as good in this as he was in Civil War, showing the teen awkwardness of Peter Parker and also the heroism of Spider-Man. I surprisingly enjoyed the villain, The Vulture, as played by Michael Keaton, who, in a surprise twist, is the father of Liz, Peter's love interest (I warned you about spoilers). Liz herself is okay, but about as forgettable as Rachel McAdams' character from Doctor Strange. Zendaya and Jacob Batalon both do well as friends of Peter, and provide good comic relief. Robert Downey Jr and Jon Favreau both feature as returning characters from previous Marvel movies, and do a good job, and surprisingly, Gwyneth Paltrow also reprises her role as Pepper Potts, which was neat to see.
The action scenes are good, but I still don't feel as if any Spider-Man films have lived up to the action from the Raimi films, particularly the third one which featured numerous great action scenes. Of course, the CGI was excellent, like in every MCU film.
Some problems I have are, as mentioned, the less than stellar fight scenes, and the bland love interest. I also felt as if this film featured more plot holes in conjunction with the rest of the MCU than normal, which was strange.
Overall though, it was really enjoyable and another fun entry into the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Rogue One (2016)
Good Star Wars prequels DO exist!
Well, that was a neat surprise. I went in expecting maybe some nice action, some great special effects and perhaps one or two good actors. What I got blew me away. I'm not a fan of the Star Wars prequel trilogy, and this movie blows all three of them out of the water.
Firstly, this movie looks fantastic. The cinematography showcased is beyond great looking. Rich colours, great backgrounds, just wonderful. The sense of scale in the movie is really great too. When Chirrut and Baze are being chased by an AT-AT, you feel the size, and the danger the characters are going through. The story is really good. The makers got the backstory of A New Hope, and went more in depth to create a story that is at the same time funny and deep. I hear a lot of people saying that the characters weren't explored in depth enough, and didn't get enough backstory. I vehemently disagree. In Pulp Fiction, did we know the backstories of Jules and Vincent? No, and we didn't have to. The dialogue and acting showcased makes us root for the characters just fine. The same is present here. All six of the main cast are very likable and interesting, and I appreciated that each of them were killed off. Some of the deaths had me nearly tearing up, though others, like the death of Bodhi Rook, kind of came out of nowhere and had no fanfare. The CGI recreation of characters Tarkin and Leia were unexpected, and I think looked pretty good. I could still tell that they weren't real, but they looked very good nonetheless. I also liked the cameos from classic OT characters. Some were expected, like Vader and Mon Mothma, but others were very pleasant surprises, like C-3PO and R2-D2, and Dr Evazon and Ponda Baba.
There are a few things wrong with this film, but they are very minimal. The scene at the end of Vader cutting down rebels felt like a bit too much. Vader certainly didn't have that ferocity in the OT. The start of the film felt choppy, with scenes cutting away to other scenes very fast. The musical score was good, but it didn't hold my interest and ends up being the least of all the Star Wars soundtracks. But really, that's it for negatives.
I hope the rest of the films to come in the future are of this quality, because if they are, we could all be in for a real treat.
Doctor Strange (2016)
My favourite comic book movie of this year, and my favourite MCU film so far
I went into this film expecting some neat visuals, good performances, and a big battle with a CGI army at the end. Nothing special, I thought, just a fun experience. But, to my utter surprise, this was something more, something really great.
Let's start with the acting. It's great, all around. Benedict Cumberbatch is massively likable and charismatic as the titular character. He brings the comedy perfectly but also the troubled man within. Tilda Swinton does a very good job at playing The Ancient One, I thought she would ham it up, but she out in a revered, quiet performance. Benedict Wong and Chiwetel Ejiofor do good jobs as supporting characters, and Mads Mikkelsen is great as usual, making a generic villain rather memorable. Rachel McAdams is good as well, but she doesn't get a lot of time to shine.
Visually, it's far and away the best looking MCU film to date, beating out Guardians of the Galaxy. The scene in which Strange is first introduced to the multiverse is an awesome treat on the eyes, and the film doesn't let up from there. All the CGI is done to perfection, and the film takes great advantage of the nonsensical rules to create some of the best action sequences I've seen this year. The gravity defying streets are very impressive as well, I must add.
The story and characters are great. The story is a little on the generic side, but it serves it's purpose well (just like in most of the MCU films). The characters are memorable, except for the love interest and villain, who come across a little flat. I won't spoil the end battle here, but it's great, and extremely different compared to the usual business of the MCU.
A small negative I found was that Doctor Strange's learning of his powers and mastering them is a little rushed. It cuts from him being an amateur to him having become quite adept at them. A small qualm, but I wish they expanded on it.
So, yes, it's very great, and sits at the top of the MCU for me, beating out The Winter Soldier.
Man, that brought back memories
So I decided to re-watch this Lego animation for the first time in years, and what did I find? It's pretty damn great.
Now, don't go into this thinking it's going to be a shot for shot recreation of Revenge of the Sith but with Lego bricks and figures, because it only follows the film in the broadest of strokes. Anakin, Obi-Wan, Mace Windu and Yoda, and Chewbacca are in it, and it features the battles of Coruscant and Kashyyyk, but that's it for similarities. The two battles depicted have little to nothing to do with the film, and go off on their own comedic strokes.
The animation has certainly dated, but still looks rather good by 2005 standards. Most of the ships depicted are clearly made from Lego, unlike in some other Lego animations, like the Ninjago cartoon. The figures also don't look very much like their real Lego counterparts, and General Grievous doesn't even appear to be made from Lego.
It has the typical Lego style humour, focusing on slapstick gags and sight jokes, which is apt because it features no voice acting. You hear Yoda's grunts, Wookiee growls and Battle Droid "roger roger's", but their are no words spoken, which makes it ideal viewing for younger children.
So don't ask me why I decided to review a short Lego animation from 2005, but do know that I recommend it with the utmost importance (as far as Lego animations go).
Star Wars: Clone Wars (2003)
It's really good, but does have some flaws
It's pretty funny that the best Star Wars story set in the prequel era comes as a miniseries that aired on Cartoon Network of all places, from 2003 to 2004. I believe this series to be superior to the 2008 computer animated version (which is still pretty good), and far superior to the three live action films.
The series has many subplots, each showing a different characters situation during the famous Clone War. These include showing well known characters like Anakin and Obi-Wan, and also minor characters, like Luminary Unduli and Barriss Offee. While these aren't connected in story, they are connected in the theme of war and how it changes people, something touched on but not really explored in depth in the live action prequel films.
The animation is fantastically stylised, and in my opinion, is far better than the 3D animation from the later Clone Wars series. Characters move in fluid motions, and the voices are well synced up to the mouths of the characters. Each character looks a lot like their live action counterparts, and for the most part, they sound pretty similar too.
The characters introduced in this series are great. Asaaj Ventress, later popularised in the 3D series, is given an introduction and an ending in this, which is more than she got in the later series. General Grievous is awesome in this, a far cry from the wheezing coward seen in Revenge of the Sith. There is a great scene in which Grievous single-handedly dispatches of numerous Jedi, which really sells how powerful his character is.
It does have flaws, which is a disappointment, seeing how great the rest of the series is, such as some really bland voice acting, in particular, Mat Lucas as Anakin, who makes Hayden Christensen look positively amazing. There is also the case of the Jedi being even more over-powered than they are in the live action prequels. There is a part where Mace Windu destroys a whole army of battle Droids just by using the force, which begs the question as to why he didn't do that at the end of Attack of the Clones.
But overall, I really love this series, and how it perfectly connects Episodes II and III of the saga. Now, it had sadly been rendered non-canon, and does raise questions in continuity if watched along side the 3D version, but really, I'd rater watch this series anyway.
Freddy vs. Jason (2003)
Quite a guilty pleasure
The first thing you ought to know about this film is that it's dumb, and it knows it. It's not trying to be the next Citizen Kane, it's just trying to be a fun movie with heaps of gory kills.
Robert Englund shines once more as Freddy Krueger, who enlists the help of Jason Voorhees to come back to kill more teens in their nightmares. Englund is clearly having a blast throughout the entire films, always smiling and exaggerating his movements. He even gets to thrust his genitals forward at one point. The character of Freddy gets the least amount of kills in the entire Nightmare franchise, at a measly one, which is disappointing. Freddy is pretty much the main character of this piece, he narrates the film, and he is the last character seen.
Kane Hodder was replaced as Jason by Ken Kirzinger, who does an okay job. I haven't seen any Friday the 13th films, so I can't compare Ken's performance to any other Jason actors, but he's passable in the role. Jason is much more of a player in this movie, and gets little more to do than simply kill teenagers.
The actual human characters are uninteresting and boring to watch, merely put in the film as backdrop for the gruesome kills and violent fight scenes. They get the broadest of character strokes. There's the virgin, the whore, the black girl, the nice guy, the jock, the nerd, the stoner, etc. Nothing revolutionary here.
You can't mention Freddy vs. Jason without talking about the actual scene where Freddy fights Jason, and I must say, they do not disappoint. There are two of them in the film, both very different from each other. In the first, Jason is asleep and in the nightmare world, in which he is absolutely dominated by Freddy, but when Freddy is pulled into the real world in the climax, the tables are turned, and Jason ultimately wins the fight.
Overall, Freddy vs. Jason is extremely dumb, with poor characters, and poor story, and bad CGI, but earns an average score because of simply how much fun it is.
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
Criminally underrated by "true fans"
It's not an especially popular opinion among "Trekkie's" but I loved this film! Seriously, I enjoyed myself all of the way through. The performances were excellent, especially Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch, who doesn't just rip off Ricardo Montalbán from Star Trek II. Also, after watching The Wrath of Khan, I can safely say that I can't grasp people saying that Into Darkness is the same film, the plot is completely different. Why does The Force Awakens get a pass from tons of people even though it is way more similar to Star Wars than this is to The Wrath of Khan (I still really like TFA though)? The characters are extremely well developed, and I loved that every core member of the Enterprise got a moment to shine (I loved Sulu's speech to the Klingon's). Overall the only problems I saw were the fake out death of Kirk and some too obvious visual riffs from The Wrath of Khan (I don't mind the big "KHAAAAN!" as it adds to Spock's character in a different way than it did to Kirk in Star Trek II. Maybe it was my lowered expectations, but I adored this film, just as much as I adored The Wrath of Khan.
Looking back, it's probably the best of the prequels.
Yes, I said it, and I'll say it again, I believe Attack of the Clones, which so many viewers believe to be the worst Star Wars film, to be superior to Revenge of the Sith, considered by many to he the redeemable prequel. But, the question is, is it a good movie on its own?
Sadly, the answer is no, but I don't think it's bad either. I believe this film has the best CGI out of the three prequels, and if you don't pause the film and inspect it frame by frame, it blends in nicely with the live action footage. Sometimes it's a little wonky, I particularly noticed some extremely fake looking CG flips and some odd backgrounds, but overall it's pretty good, while also somewhat dated.
The action scenes are also fun as hell to watch, especially a speeder chase towards the beginning and Obi-Wan's fight against Jango Fett. The most disappointing of these fight scenes are the lightsaber duels, which are overly choreographed and boring to watch, a stark contrast to the intense duels of The Phantom Menace. Anakin's fight against Dooku in particular looks like a ballet dance.
The acting is a very mixed bag. Some, like Christopher Lee, Ewan McGregor, and Temuera Morrison, bring natural charisma to their respective roles and are fun to watch, yet others, like Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson are stoic and bland, Jackson displaying none of the charm of some of his other roles.
The dialogue is also quite bad. I'll just leave it at that.
So all in all, I don't think Attack of the Clones is all that horrible, though I certainly don't think it's a masterpiece, and I think it's the most enjoyable of the three prequels.
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Pretty good, a lot of fun
When I saw the negative reviews for this film, I was quite worried. But, as it turns out, this was quite a good film.
The acting in this film is rather mixed. It ranged from very great, like James McAvoy as Charles, and Michael Fassbender as Erik, to just good, like Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse, and Tye Sheridan as Scott Summers, to just plain awful, like Ben Hardy as Angel, and Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique. Most of the characters were well developed, and like all the other X- Men films, the scenes with Magneto were the best, and most emotional in the film. Some characters however, got the short end of the stick, particularly Jubilee and Psylocke, who had barely any screen time to speak of.
The action was something I was quite worried about, but luckily, it far exceeded my expectations. My favourite action centric scene was a scene where Magneto's powers are amplified and he is able to control any metal across the globe, resulting in mass destruction worldwide. The climax of the film was also quite good, despite some occasional ropey CGI.
The music was rather generic but pretty entertaining to listen to. The film was also full of "whoa, awesome!" moments, which I though both Captain America: Civil War and Deadpool were both lacking in.
Overall, if you haven't seen this film, I would highly recommend it.
P.S. Wolverine is awesome!
The Dark Knight (2008)
Overrated, but still really great
This film has for nearly a decade now been called the peak of perfection when it comes to comic book movies, and well, I can't say I disagree. While this film is dark, and features barely any moments of childlike wonder, for example Superman first taking off in Superman: The Movie, it remains an enthralling film to watch, and one that is never short of entertaining. It isn't really much of a superhero film, it's more like a drama/crime/action film, and I'm not complaining. If the MCU has taught us anything, it's that the same formula gets boring after ten movies.
The strongest aspect of this film is the characters, particularly the villains who are developed magnificently. The Joker gets more screen time and is generally the one who people talk about, but I think Two-Face, played by Aaron Eckhart, is just as good. Throughout the film he goes through this journey into madness, reaching it's conclusion when half of his face is burned off just as his love is blown up. It's a very touching scene, for a very tragic character. The Joker is excellent also, though his plan makes no sense at all, and his motivations are never explained, other than, "I like causing chaos." Even then, he is very entertaining to watch and Heath Ledger most certainly deserved that Oscar he received. Christian Bale does a good job at Batman/Bruce Wayne, though his Batman voice is extremely cheesy and laughable to watch. Batman himself could also be developed, but really, this film is mostly centred around a Batman who is at the top of his game. Michael Caine is great, though he doesn't get much screen time, and Gary Oldman is perfect as Commissioner Gordon. The action in this film is fantastic, I'm so glad Nolan didn't do shaky cam again like in Batman Begins. The car chase is a visual spectacle and is relentlessly entertaining. Sadly, though the camera-work is very good, the cinematography is really quite boring. Just a load of grays and blacks, it isn't very interesting to look at. Though really, the flaws I mentioned have little impact on the film, and only bring it down slightly. All in all this film is very great, and certainly deserves it's reputation as the best comic book movie.
Shaun of the Dead (2004)
Great comedy film
Shaun of the Dead is the feature film debut of talented British comedy director Edgar Wright, and while I absolutely adore his other films, I really don't think any of them can really top this one.
Simon Pegg stars as Shaun, last name never given, and he does an excellent job portraying the slight, average, yet comedic side of the character, but also the tormented, dark side of the character, seen most prominently when Shaun is forced to shoot his mother after just watching her die, which is a heart-wrenching scene, as we have grown to love both of these characters. Nick Frost is Ed, Shaun's fat, oafish, lazy room mate, who rarely gets up from the couch. Ed is a funny character to watch, and although he is not a very good person, Nick Frost makes you care about him so when he dies, it's another tear jerker scene. Everyone else does a really good job, I especially love Peter Serafinowicz as Shaun's other room mate Pete, even though he doesn't get much screen time.
The story is comedic and original, portraying what I think a local zombie apocalypse would look like. Edgar Wright's direction sizzles on screen, I particularly love his fast zooms and great background jokes that take a second viewing to get. I also love how the true reason for the zombie apocalypse is never actually revealed, which means that they don't have to force in some scientific jargon to explain the plot.
Does this film have flaws? Sadly, yes, though they are few. Most of the flaws come towards the end. Ed's death was something not foreshadowed anywhere, and all the S.W.A.T members attacking at the end comes out of left field, Shaun really wasn't the hero of the story. But really, other than a few technical goofs, that's it for detractors.
Overall, if you haven't seen Shaun of the Dead, I would highly recommend it.
Terminator Genisys (2015)
Is there anything good about this film?
This film is complete garbage, even worse than Terminator 3, if that's even possible. I have heard many "fans" of the series saying that this is a "return to form" or that "Arnie's still got it" and well, no, that's not true at all.
Firstly, what works in this film? Well, I sort of appreciate that they got Arnold back, even though he really is quite terrible and is way to old, so, that isn't very good. I like Jason Clarke as John Connor, even though he doesn't look or act the part. Wait, that's not a good thing...
What doesn't work? Firstly, the "acting" The acting is garbage, Emilia Clarke does nothing but bitch, Arnold screws up all of his lines, and Jai Courtney is the worst thing to ever grace the screen. Also, the music. What music? I don't remember a single track. The action is extremely boring to watch, directed without any flair or excitement, and the story is haphazardly written, it really makes no sense at all. There are a ton more things that are terrible, but we would be here all day if I had to list them all.
The only interesting thing about this film is how it got a theatrical release, even the production values are garbage. They obviously spent so much time and money of CG young Arnie, that they just rushed everything else.
Do not torture yourself by watching this movie. It makes Salvation look like a masterpiece.
Captain America: Civil War (2016)
While I don't think this film deserves the immense praise it is receiving, I truly think it is a lot of fun and is one of the better MCU films.
The acting in this film is all very good, Robert Downey Jr plays Tony Stark great, like he always does, and Chris Evans fits the role of Steve Rogers well. The film juggles many characters, and for the most part, does a good, commendable job, though some characters, like Hawkeye or Rhodey, get very little to do and aren't as fun to watch as some others. Tom Holland kills it as Peter Parker/Spider-Man, he certainly is the best Spidey to date. Every scene with him is great and fun to watch. Chadwick Boseman does a great job at Black Panther, and the character is interesting and entertaining. Once more Paul Rudd is funny and likable as Ant-Man, even though he is sorely underused, he does get time to shine when he turns into Giant Man. Paul Bettany and Elizabeth Olsen are good and Vision and Scarlet Witch, respectively, and their characters have nice arcs.
The story is well put together and runs smoothly for the most part. It does gets convoluted towards the end, but it mostly works. The villain is one note and has no charisma, but his motivations tie into the film nicely, and he gets some time to shine. The cinematography is quite boring, under saturated and gray. The airport fight is severely hurt by the amount of gray in it.
The action in this film is handles magnificently, aside from a couple of shaky segments, like the tunnel chase, which was straight out of Taken 2. The big fight scene at the airport is extremely fun, and it is great seeing all these unique powers playing off each other. Ant-Man turning giant is pure fan-service, but it adds a great dynamic to the battle and in turn makes it more fun.
The film has good emotion, specifically towards the end, when it is revealed that Bucky murdered Tony's parents, which leads to a heart wrenching conclusion.
Overall, while I can't quite grasp giving the film a 10/10, I did enjoy it, and feel that it is a great addition to the MCU.