Reviews written by registered user
|13 reviews in total|
A young billionaire returns to his dark city after numerous years.
During that time, he trained to become a superhero. Now, returning, he
decides to fight off corruption and villains. However, he still has to
maintain an identity as, frankly, a spoiled brat.
Sound familiar? It is.
Arrow is the new CW show about comic book hero and fan favourite Green Arrow. After being shipwrecked, Oliver 'Ollie' Queen decides to train himself and become a better person. In the comics, he decides to fight off various villains. In this show...he decides to become a murderer.
Yes, I found it quite hard to identify or sympathize with this character. Unlike Batman, this 'hero' flat-out kills his enemies, most of whom have so far been bodyguards or unscrupulous businessmen, and has stated he has a hit-list of corrupt people he wants to take out.
Further similarities are created with his love interest, a snubbed woman with a vague job that apparently involves helping people, much like Rachel Dawes of the Christopher Nolan Batman movies. So far, both characters feel the same - items for the hero to attain and defend.
The editing throughout this pilot was terrible. By inter-splicing the backstory, a coherent feel could've been attained - however, this was not the case. Random moments of him in a lifeboat every 10 minutes leave you confused, especially since it hasn't been explained how he's attained his skills.
The action is well-directed, but overtly violent. In an attempt to distance itself from the fantasy of comic books, this show went into dangerously dark territory and it lost me.
The character of Oliver is confusing at best - the distinction between his playboy lifestyle and his inner turmoil is blurred, giving him the feel of an angry teenager who wants to lash out at the world. The other characters are stereotypical at best - his serious, black bodyguard; his womanizing, sex-obsessed friend; and his sister who is angry and rebellious, but clearly spoiled rotten.
The show does have a few pluses - Green Arrow's costume is extremely sleek and well- designed, the stunts are well-done, and the set pieces are well-done.
However, similarities between its influence ruin this show. The show feels more like a darker rehash of the Dark Knight trilogy than its own project - and, in this, is where it ultimately fails.
I will continue to watch this show, in hopes that it gets better - to make your own opinion, you should as well. It's worth a watch, at least.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Oh, jeez, I'm quite late, aren't I? Okay.
I recently reviewed 'The Avengers', so I'd say it's time to review the other movie commonly regarded as 'the best superhero movie ever'. It's been praised to Kingdom Come, it's a phenomenon. And what do I think?
Christopher Nolan is a good director. There's no denying that - Inception was fantastic. Technically, this film is fantastic. Heath Ledger (R.I.P) delivers an extremely haunting performance as the Joker, practically redefining the definition of a good villain. Aaron Eckhart, as well, stands out for his portrayal of Harvey Dent. Michael Caine is, of course, awesome and Morgan Freeman certainly isn't too shabby either. Christian Bale's a great Bruce Wayne and a pretty darn good Batman for what he was given to work with. The effects are pretty good as well, particularly when Joker blows up the hospital. Cinematography is good, and the score is actually great.
So, where did this movie fall apart for me? I'll break it down:
1) The pacing. This movie is very long - about 2 and a half hours. I don't have a problem with long movies, but the movie really started to feel more like the last stretch of a marathon rather than entertainment.
2) The writing. Okay, this is a big one. People praise this movie as perfect, but I think they're overlooking some major plot holes. How did Batman and Rachel survive after they fell at least 30 stories and landed on a taxi? What happened to Joker after he got into Wayne's penthouse? The first one is just weird, but second one is a major point that's never addressed in the movie.
3) Rachel Dawes. She's extremely unlikable, boring, and enforces a huge misstep in most works of fiction: she dies so that the male hero can have something to fight for. It's terrible, but I felt nothing when she died.
4) Joker. I mean absolutely no disrespect to Heath Ledger's memory when I say this. In fact, it saddens me to it. I've had 4 years to reflect on what Christopher Nolan's Joker is, and I've come to the conclusion that he just feels like someone who dresses up LIKE the Joker and infuses his own philosophies into it. He's not funny, he's just extremely terrifying. Nolan made a huge misstep with this character.
5) The tone. This movie is dark. It's violent. And it's overtly so. Some say it's to reinforce how 'realistic' this Batman's world is supposed to be - I say it's a 14-year-old's idea of what mature is. And a lot of the time, it misses the mark on what a superhero movie is supposed to be - entertaining. The Dark Knight forgoes this and becomes a philosophical cop drama that takes itself too seriously.
In conclusion, this is a technically excellent movie hampered by plot holes, an overtly dark tone, and other flaws.
The theatre in the town where I live isn't exactly pleasant, so I
decided to wait until the Avengers came out on DVD to buy it. Now,
understand, I am a huge Marvel fan - I've seen all the "Avengers
preludes", I've read comics, I've watched cartoons, I had the action
figures as a kid. This movie meant a ton to me, and I was hoping it
would be great. And as I pressed play, and the villain, Loki, appeared,
I knew I was in for an event.
The Avengers exceeded my expectations by far, cementing it as one of my favourite movies of all time instantly. You could say that I'm shallow - that the Avengers is nothing more than a CG extravaganza that pales against the likes of the Dark Knight. But you're wrong.
The Avengers has a heart that other superhero movies, or, even, other movies don't. It's funnier than most comedies I've seen. It succeeds in not taking itself so deathly seriously that it loses what makes a superhero movie a superhero movie - it relishes the implausibility of what's happening. At the same time, however, it's technically fantastic. It's well-acted. The characters are well-fleshed out, likable, and receive a lot of development, and Joss Whedon expertly juggles every single hero Marvel threw at him. Everyone feels like they belong on the team, even Black Widow - who I was worried was going to be 'the female character', ended up being a standout in the movie. The dialogue is fantastic, and I was very impressed with the pace. Even when the team was on the Helicarrier for quite a while, I was completely engrossed.
At one point, I 'stepped back' from the extreme battle going on, and I realized that I was smiling during the entire movie up until then.
Absolutely fantastic. 10/10.
Young Justice was a show that I was keeping up with for a long time,
but have recently stopped. Keeping up with the show was tough, because
it wasn't broadcast on Teletoon where I live, it went on numerous
hiatuses, but I found a way. And I always found a way, because I loved
The first season, that is.
Young Justice in its first season was amazing. The tone of it, the way it was set up, the character development, the relationships between characters (yes, they were a little cheesy, but so be it) would all make for a normally good show. But what propelled Young Justice into the realm of greatness was the tone of it and how it handled the source material it drew from. The show was mature, but not dreadfully dark like a lot of 'mature' works are nowadays. It felt very modern, in a word, because it 'updated' all its characters.
Which is why the second season has been so infinitely disappointing for me. Season 2 introduced heaps of new characters, such as Batgirl, Wonder Girl, Blue Beetle, and Lagoon Boy. And it also skipped 5 years forward in time, ageing up the entire Young Justice team into the 18-21 years old range.
This is where the show went downhill, and fast. With so many characters suddenly introduced, as well as the 'alien invasion' plot it's attempting to carry out, the maturity and modernism of the season past has been lost. The show has waded into, dare I say it, 'dark' territory. By skipping 5 years, I've lost touch with the original team. I have no idea what they've been doing, how they've changed - and so I can't care about them anymore. The new characters introduced feel shallow and underdeveloped, and the writers have failed in juggling them equally. The second season has dropped the ball so much. So, so much.
I was so disappointed by the second season, because I was so emotionally involved with the first one. I felt for the entire team, and now, in season 2, I end each episode with a sense of hollow disappointment. I personally will not return to watching it once the current hiatus ends, and I predict many other people will drop it as well.
And that is why, with sadness, I cannot recommend Young Justice to anybody. Nor can I recommend the first season alone, because it will leave you wanting more. And, sadly, the second season does not provide what you would want.
Gravity Falls is a new show on Disney Channel, and the only reason I
heard about it was because of a friend I have on tumblr. While I
haven't been a fan of Disney's recent...ventures, I have to say that
Gravity Falls is absolutely fantastic.
Gravity Falls is about two kids, Mabel and Dipper Pines, who are currently living in one of those "middle of nowhere" towns called Gravity Falls with their uncle Stan, who appears to have a very mysterious past. Plenty of other mysteries lurk in Gravity Falls, and you, as the viewer, look to figure them out along with Dipper and Mabel. Along with dealing with their eccentric uncle, the kids also encounter the extremely snarky Wendy as well as a host of other quirky residents.
The tone of Gravity Falls's humour is very similar to Adventure Time - very strange and mostly situational, but I feel that a lot of the time the dialogue is much more clever and mature than that of Adventure Time's. The voice acting, animation and art style are also great, and the theme song of the show especially is fantastic.
What I enjoy most about this show, however, is its tone. This show is a total mystery - there's clues hidden everywhere. I'm completely enthralled with finding everything out before it's addressed in the show - mainly Stan's past.
This show is great, check it out!
...that was it. These days, with so many superhero movies coming out,
you gotta make your movie stand out. And The Incredible Hulk really
didn't stand out for me - there were certain moments that did, for
sure, but the movie as a whole was kind of bland.
Edward Norton as Bruce Banner - great choice. His physique, especially, made him a great pick - Ed Norton's a skinny guy, and, compared to the Hulk, it makes the transformation even more grave. Liv Tyler didn't stand out to me, either (at least she didn't annoy me) - neither did Tim Blake Nelson, or William Hurt. Tim Roth was cool, though.
There were certain elements that I really liked about The Incredible Hulk - mainly when Bruce Banner is just Bruce Banner. I honestly wasn't interested in the parts where he Hulks out. I don't know why - I was just so enveloped in his search for a cure that I just got bored of the action scenes and wanted them to be over.
Overall, I cared more about the guy way more than the Hulk, and I think that's where this movie failed - it didn't strike a balance. It's worth checking out, though.
X-Men: First Class, to a lot of fans, was gonna either make or break
the film series for them after they were disappointed by X-Men 3 and
X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Me, I'm not a big fan of the X-Men, and I
never have been.
This movie, however, was enough to make me interested. X-Men: First Class is an origin story for the X-Men, obviously, but the internal conflict in it makes it soar above other superhero movies. Charles (played by James McAvoy, who was great) and Erik (played by Michael Fassbender, who is fantastic in everything he's in) are both mutants, leading a team of other mutants - but at the same time, their personal philosophies differ so greatly that it gives a lot of tension to the film.
The performances in this film are all great - Jennifer Lawrence, Kevin Bacon, and Nicholas Hoult all stood out to me especially. The movie has great action and great dialogue as well. However, I thought certain moments were rushed, leading to some either awkward moments or really abrupt ones.
Overall, definitely see X-Men: First Class! I give it a 9.
As I said in my Spider-Man (2002) review, I'm a big Spidey fan. I know
a lot about him - I know about his lore, I know about his personality.
This show makes a complete mockery of everything Spider-Man. That's right, a mockery. A big theme of Spider-Man is "responsibility". The Spidey in this show? He doesn't know what responsibility is. There's just so much wrong with this show. I think, to be fair, I'll start off with the good: the voice acting. All the voices fit well. I LIKE Drake Bell as Spider-Man, I think he's a worthy successor to Josh Keaton's fantastic work in Spectacular Spider-Man. It's just that the guy has such a horrible script to work with, it squanders his talents.
Now, the bad. I already mentioned the script. Spider-Man's wit and humour has been completely murdered in favour of chibi humor for the anime generation, where he constantly breaks the fourth wall. Am I watching Deadpool? No, I'm watching Spider-Man, and that's not his type of humour.
Another bad point: what it's entire purpose is. And this show's purpose? TOYS. The whole situation reminds me of "The Batman" from the early 2000s. That show was marketed at children to sell toys, but it was actually a good show at points. This show? It's so obviously marketed for toys you can't even pay attention to the "plot" it attempts to have. They gave Spider-Man a MOTORCYCLE. A MOTORCYCLE. There's absolutely no need for that - if they gave Batman a motorcycle in his cartoon, it makes sense. He's Batman, he has to get around. Spider-Man has his web-slingers and can climb up walls - why in the WORLD does he need a motorcycle? Apparently S.H.I.E.L.D. thought he needed one.
And that's another problem - what this show is trying to do is make Spider-Man a part of S.H.I.E.L.D. and a big part of the Marvel universe, etc.. It doesn't work. Spider-Man is a character that has so much of his own lore, it creates its own universe. And by popping in in the Avengers or the New Avengers in the comics, it makes it special, especially since those are organizations that aren't a part of S.H.I.E.L.D. They're trying to shove all these different characters in, and it's just a waste. And putting him in a "teenage superhero" team is just such a bad idea to start. Also, this is something that actually offended me, because my father's friend's son is an amputee - they took Doc Conners, possibly the only normal amputee in the Marvel universe...and gave him an arm. Why would you do that? It's the icing on the cake. This is a horrible show, with bad humour, bad characters, and it is definitely not a worthy successor to the fantastic Spectacular Spider-Man.
Don't watch this. If you wanna see Spider-Man interact with Marvel characters, just watch Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes, because he shows up sometimes.
I'm gonna say it right here, I'm a HUGE Spider-Man fan. He's my
favourite superhero of all time. So, being such a big fan, I, of
course, had to watch the movie adaption. Surprisingly, I didn't
actually see it in theatres - I wasn't old enough at the time, or maybe
my parents just didn't take me to go see it. Who knows.
So, finally watching it, I gotta say...it is SO an early 2000s movie. There's this one scene, where it's just a shot of Spidey (played by Tobey Maguire, which was an interesting choice) from just a bit below his shoulders and up. He's against a bright New York Cityscape sunset. And he raises his hand and does the websling motion...
...and it looked so BAD I burst out laughing. You know, that laugh where you feel kinda bad for laughing? Yeah? That one. It looked SO dated, it was humorous. Most of the other special effects were pretty decent, if nothing special.
This is a fun superhero movie. It's nothing more than that, to be honest. And it did have some problems with it. First off, the dialogue between Spidey and his big villain, Green Goblin (played by Willem Dafoe) was just so cheesy and forced. There's a part where Green Goblin sings "Itsy Bitsy Spider". I'm serious.
My second problem with it is that so much about Spidey was changed in the movie. Looking back, now knowing more about Spidey than ever, I see so many problems. First off, where's Gwen Stacy? Part of me just thinks the writer was scared to kill her off, so she wasn't put in. Oh well.
Secondly, Spider-Man's webslingers. Or, rather, his lack-there-of. Spider-Man NEEDS his webslingers - it's an integral part of his character, showing the intelligence of Peter Parker. That's a big problem in this movie - Spider-Man doesn't seem smart, at all. This continues into the other films, so be warned.
I thought the suit was fine, but the white webbing as opposed to the black was kind of strange. Come to think of it, what else is Red, White, and Blue? A flag...of a country...a very powerful country...
That's right! France! Subliminal messaging, people. Subliminal messaging.
Anyways, if you like Spider-Man, be sure to check this out. It's great fun.
Thor's a great example of a superhero movie - good acting, good action,
and all around good fun. I very much enjoyed Thor, and it's my
second-favourite "Avengers prelude" movie (the first being Iron Man).
Despite being a prelude, however, I think Thor stands on its own with the likes of Spider-Man and Batman Begins. The special effects in this movie are very good, and I really enjoyed seeing Asgard and the Frost Giant world, because they were beautifully created. I thought the lore behind Asgard was all very well done and I was really interested in it.
The action was well-directed, and it really made Thor seem as though he was a powerful warrior. Speaking of Thor, I thought Chris Hemsworth did a great job with his portrayal, as did the other actors and actresses. Tom Hiddleston, especially, stood out as Thor's brother, Loki.
I did have a few minor problems with Thor, which deterred me from giving it a 9/10, and it mainly had to do with the supporting characters. Kat Dennings's character, Darcy Lewis, (who, of course was funny), I felt was pretty much unneeded. It's not like I didn't like her, it just seemed like she was there because of comic relief. Basically, if she was left out of the movie, I don't think it would've been any worse (or better).
Also, I wanted to see more of Thor's friends - the Warrior's Three and Sif. I thought they were really interesting - overall, I wanted to see more of Asgard in general. However, Thor learning how Earth customs work made for some great humour.
So, I would definitely recommend Thor.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |