Review – Injustice (2021). On an alternate Earth, the Joker tricks Superman into killing Lois Lane, which causes a rampage in the hero.
Better Than The Game? Injustice Animated Movie Review Read More »
Revisit the beginning of the Asgardian saga. We review Thor (2011), analyzing Kenneth Branagh’s Shakespearean direction, the debut of Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, and whether the Phase 1 classic stands the test of time. The Verdict at a Glance Introduction: The MCU’s First Big Gamble Before 2011, the Marvel Cinematic Universe was grounded in the tech-based reality of Iron Man. Thor was the franchise’s first leap of faith into high fantasy, magic, and cosmic gods. Directed by Kenneth Branagh, the film attempts to blend Shakespearean family drama with modern superhero tropes. Looking back more than a decade later, Thor feels distinct from the rest of the MCU. It lacks the improv-heavy comedy of Ragnarok, opting instead for a sincere, theatrical tone. But is it a classic, or just a stepping stone? The Plot: A Tale of Two Realms Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the arrogant but powerful prince of Asgard, reignites an ancient war with the Frost Giants. As punishment, his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) strips him of his powers and banishes him to Earth—specifically, a small town in New Mexico. While Thor learns humility among humans (and falls for astrophysicist Jane Foster), his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) uncovers his own dark origins and plots to seize the throne of Asgard. What Works (The Worthy) The Perfect Casting It is impossible to imagine anyone else in these roles. Chris Hemsworth nails the transition from arrogant warmonger to humble hero, bringing a physicality that sells the character immediately. However, the real star is Tom Hiddleston. His nuanced performance as Loki provides the MCU with its first genuinely tragic villain, setting the stage for his dominance in The Avengers. The Shakespearean Drama Kenneth Branagh brings a level of gravitas to the Asgard scenes that elevates the material. The conflict isn’t just about punching bad guys; it’s about fathers, sons, and the burden of legacy. The dialogue in the throne room feels weighty and significant, giving the film a unique flavor compared to the quip-heavy scripts of later Marvel movies. Fish-Out-of-Water Humor The film is at its best when Thor is struggling with earthly customs. The famous “Another!” scene, where he smashes a coffee mug in a diner, remains one of the most charming moments in Phase 1. What Doesn’t Work (The Unworthy) The “Small Town” Problem For a movie about space gods, a surprising amount of the runtime is spent in a dusty parking lot in New Mexico. The budget constraints of Phase 1 are visible here. The Destroyer armor battle in the climax feels less like a planetary threat and more like a small skirmish in a cul-de-sac. The Romance While Hemsworth and Portman are both talented, their romance feels rushed. They fall in love over the course of a long weekend, largely based on Thor being attractive and polite. It lacks the spark that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts had. Overuse of Dutch Angles A common critique of the film is the cinematography. Branagh loves a “Dutch angle” (tilting the camera to the side). Once you notice that almost every shot in the movie is tilted, it becomes distracting. Final Thoughts: A Solid Foundation Thor (2011) is a charming, if slightly uneven, entry in the Marvel canon. It did the heavy lifting of introducing magic to the MCU, paving the way for Doctor Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy. While it may feel small compared to the cosmic epics that followed, the emotional core of the Thor/Loki relationship makes it essential viewing. Pros: Hiddleston’s debut; Asgardian production design; Sincere emotional stakes. Cons: The bleached eyebrows on Thor; Forgettable action set pieces on Earth; Forced Hawkeye cameo. Where to Buy & Watch To witness the start of the Odinson’s journey, check out the links below [Stream on Amazon Prime Video] [Buy Thor (2011) 4K Ultra HD + Blu-ray on Amazon] [Buy Thor (2011) Standard DVD on Amazon]
Review – 1922 Directed by: Zak Hilditch Written by: Zak Hilditch (Screenplay) Stephen King (Novella) Produced by: Zak Hilditch & Sammie Astaneh Starring: Thomas Jane, Molly Parker & Dylan Schmid Release Date: October 20th 2017 Earlier in the year, I wrote a review for the Netflix adaption of Gerald’s Game by Mike Flanagan. 1922 was another Stephen King story adapted for Netflix, released just a month after the surprisingly phenomenal Gerald’s Game adaption. This meant that although 1922 is a very different movie to Gerald’s Game it was inevitably compared to Mike Flanagan’s surprise triumph upon its release. Going back to revisit 1922 for review four years later, it is in no way a bad film and it is unfortunate that it was released in the shadow of Gerald’s Game. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man. His name is Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, ‘belong,’ to him; his son, his wife and his land. Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that Wilfred outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette’s father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wilfred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land from her in instalments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder. From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who reading who still have yet to see the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss. The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and felt that the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well. My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalises on it. A Stephen King ghost story that released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. Back when the film first dropped in late 2017, I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into. Instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed. Sure, all of that still makes for an interesting idea for a movie, it just isn’t exactly what I wanted out of this movie. Overall though, 1922 is a very well made movie and for what it is it is great. Although it didn’t quite meet my personal expectations that I had for it back when it released that is my own problem rather than the movie’s. Four years separated from the trailers and build up to this film’s release, I actually feel like I can appreciate the film more and would even go as far as to say it is a hidden gem. As with any Stephen King story, the plot of 1922 makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do. I just wish that it had scared me slightly more. [yasr_multiset setid=2] [yasr_visitor_multiset setid=2] If you enjoyed Dan’s review of 1922 and are into your Stephen King stories, you can check out our review of It: Chapter One here. Don’t forget to like us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Discord and join our official Facebook Group. Check out our new Podcast and subscribe to the channel on Youtube, Spotify, Apple and Google. Buy tickets for BGCP Comic Con in and around Glasgow Scotland – BUY TICKETS Check out all of our Comic, Movie, Television and Videogame Reviews and News from Glasgow, Scotland, UK and the US, HERE and our Podcasts/Interviews HERE If you want to be part of the BGCP community, Join us on Discord, Twitter, Instagram etc then click HERE
Review – Heavy Metal (1981) Directed by – Gerald Potterton, John Bruno & Others Produced by – Ivan Reitman Written by – Dan Goldberg, Len Blum, Dan O’Bannon & Others Starring (voice talents) – John Candy, Eugene Levy, Harold Ramis & Others Release Date – 7th August 1981 Intro A glowing green orb – which embodies ultimate evil, terrorizes a young girl with an anthology of bizarre and fantastic stories of dark fantasy, eroticism and horror. So let’s take a trip back to 1981 and revisit the first animated movie from Heavy Metal. I wasn’t born at the time but I remember discovering this in the late 90’s and being overwhelmed by how utterly insane it is. And it had a kick-ass soundtrack! Re-watching it again many years later, how would I feel about it now? Story/Writing Based on the American Comic magazine of the same name, Heavy Metal (1981) the animated Sci-Fi film has a somewhat cult following. In no small part to the graphic violence, gratuitous sex/nudity and out of this world Sci-Fi stories. The Movie itself has several writers and they combine for six tales, each revolving around the mysterious green orb. A cabbie saves a girl from mobsters, a nerd transformed into a stud, a space captain on Trial, a WW2 bomber crew turned into zombies, the pentagon secretary abducted by aliens and the final tale in which the orb transforms a docile tribe into killers. The stories themselves are entertaining and certainly they might be served better with modern day animation. Art/Animation/Visuals Whilst the animation may have been fresh back in the 80’s, it has not aged well. With the advancements in digital technology, the artwork in this movie is somewhat obsolete. It doesn’t mean that it is unwatchable. People still like a bit of nostalgia. I’m sure some fans of Heavy Metal will still enjoy this. And people under the influence may enjoy the visuals even more! Overall Heavy Metal (1981) – The animation has not stood the test of time unfortunately. And as a result, if you are watching this for the first time, you may be disappointed. But it’s still entertaining from a Science Fiction point of view. And if you like a bit of nostalgia and gratuitous violence and graphic sex/nudity, this is right up your street! Not forgetting the assembly of amazing bands for the soundtrack! If you can handle the severely outdated animation, then I’m sure you will enjoy what is regarded as a cult classic. If you enjoyed our review of Heavy Metal (1981) then leave a comment or rating below. [yasr_multiset setid=1] [yasr_visitor_multiset setid=1] Buy tickets for BGCP Comic Con in and around Glasgow Scotland – BUY TICKETS Check out all of our Comic, Movie, Television and Videogame Reviews HERE and our Podcasts/Interviews HERE If you want to be part of the BGCP community, Join us on Discord, Twitter, Instagram etc then click HERE www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com
Is Thor: The Dark World worth watching in your MCU marathon? We review the flawed sequel, analyzing its forgettable villain, tonal issues, and why it is often ranked as the worst Marvel movie. The Verdict at a Glance Introduction: The MCU’s Identity Crisis In the grand tapestry of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Thor: The Dark World (2013) occupies a difficult spot. Sandwiched between the Shakespearean drama of the first Thor and the psychedelic comedy of Thor: Ragnarok, this sequel struggles to find its footing. While it was a financial success, critical and fan reception has soured over the years. Is it simply a skippable chapter, or is it a fundamental misstep in Marvel history? This review breaks down why the God of Thunder’s second solo outing is widely considered the franchise’s “black sheep.” The Plot: A Generic Fantasy Slog The story picks up post-Avengers, with Thor (Chris Hemsworth) bringing order to the Nine Realms. However, an ancient enemy returns: Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) and his Dark Elves, who seek a weapon known as the Aether (the Reality Stone) to plunge the universe into eternal darkness. When Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) accidentally absorbs the Aether, she becomes a target, forcing Thor to bring her to Asgard and eventually team up with his treacherous brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Where It Went Wrong Malekith: The “Who?” of Marvel Villains The film’s fatal flaw is its antagonist. Christopher Eccleston is a fantastic actor, yet he is buried under prosthetics and given zero character depth. Malekith has no relatable motivation—he simply wants to destroy the universe because he likes the dark. In an era of complex villains like Thanos or Killmonger, Malekith is shockingly one-dimensional and entirely forgettable. A Tonal Mess The Dark World tries too hard to be “Game of Thrones” in space. It abandons the fish-out-of-water charm of the first movie but lacks the bold, colorful humor that Taika Waititi would later bring to the franchise. The result is a movie that feels gray, dreary, and overly serious without the emotional weight to back it up. The Wasted Talents of Natalie Portman Jane Foster is reduced to a plot device. Rather than an active participant, she spends the majority of the film as a living vessel for the MacGuffin (The Aether), fainting or being carried from room to room. It is no surprise that Portman took a long hiatus from the MCU after this entry; the script gave her nothing to do. Boring Exposition Much of the dialogue consists of characters explaining fantasy pseudoscience to one another. The pacing drags significantly in the second act, making the 1 hour and 52-minute runtime feel much longer. The Saving Graces It isn’t all bad. Here is what keeps the movie watchable: Final Thoughts: Essential Viewing Only for Completionists Thor: The Dark World is a film that checks boxes rather than telling a compelling story. It introduces an Infinity Stone (The Aether), but fails to make us care about the journey. If you are doing a full MCU rewatch, you might feel obligated to sit through it. However, if you are looking for entertainment value, this is easily the most skippable entry in the Infinity Saga. It is a harsh reminder that even Marvel Studios isn’t invincible. Pros: Tom Hiddleston’s Loki; High production value; Important for Avengers: Endgame context. Cons: Forgettable villain; Dull color palette; Weak script; Wasted supporting cast. Where to Buy & Watch If you need to complete your collection or want to see the introduction of the Reality Stone, you can purchase the film below.
Thor: The Dark World Review – MCU’s Worst Movie? Read More »
Hellboy Movie 2019 Review: A Soul-Crushing Dumpster Fire INTRODUCTION: The Worst Superhero Film Ever? Welcome to our Hellboy Movie 2019 Review. While taking notes for this piece, I realized that the movie is impressive in only one way. It made me question the futility of time. Why was I wasting my short life re-watching this atrocious piece of trash? This might be the worst film I have ever seen. Frankly, it took the crown of “worst superhero movie” from Fan4stic. This reboot is downright insulting to fans. I still cannot believe they chose this garbage over a third Guillermo del Toro film with Ron Perlman. CHARACTERS: A Whiny Hero and Sleepwalking Actors A major part of any Hellboy Movie 2019 Review is the cast. David Harbour had big shoes to fill. In his defense, he tries his best with extremely poor material. However, the writers turned Big Red into a moaning, whiny teenager. Furthermore, the excessive makeup prevents Harbour from emoting. His mouth opens and closes like a puppet while shoddy ADR dialogue plays over it. The supporting cast is equally insufferable. Alice gives one of the worst performances I have ever witnessed in a comic book movie. Meanwhile, Ian McShane clearly sleepwalked through his role for an easy paycheck. Milla Jovovich plays a stereotypical witch and brings nothing new to the table. TECHNICALS: Cheap CGI and Horrible Editing In this Hellboy Movie 2019 Review, we have to talk about the visuals. I have seen cheap CGI before, but this takes the cake. Almost every creature looks like an unfinished student project. The fight with the giants is particularly bad. It takes place in broad daylight, which exposes the amateur effects. The editing is also horrible. It feels like a cheap 90s television show. The soundtrack is misused, featuring songs that add absolutely nothing to the scenes. Even the humor fails. The movie relies on gross-out burp jokes and “pantomime” dialogue that feels more like a poor kids’ film than a dark horror-action epic. VERDICT: The Final Hellboy Movie 2019 Review Ultimately, Neil Marshall’s Hellboy is a disaster. Please don’t see this unless you hate yourself. It is two hours of your life that would be better spent doing literally anything else. CGI Quality: 1/10 Writing: 1/10 Overall Rating: 1/5 Stars Check out our other 2019 reviews: Review – Shazam! (Movie) (2019) Review – Jedi: Fallen Order (2019) Want to see if it’s really that bad? Buy Hellboy (2019) on Amazon.
Hellboy Movie 2019 Review: A Soul-Crushing Dumpster Fire Read More »
Shazam Movie 2019 Review: A Fun But Flawed DC Adventure INTRODUCTION: A New Direction for DC Welcome to our Shazam Movie 2019 Review. Usually, I know the source material of superhero movies very well. However, Shazam was an exception. Aside from the famous copyright battles between Marvel and DC, I knew very little about the character. Watching this film for review, I enjoyed many aspects, but it definitely falls short in specific areas. Interestingly, the movie marks a shift in the DCEU. DC finally dropped the dour tone of the Zack Snyder era. Instead, they embraced a “fun factor” that started right here. STORY: The Balance of Comedy and Action In this Shazam Movie 2019 Review, we look at how the film prioritizes family lessons over massive action. Zachary Levi shines in the titular role. His chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer is a massive highlight. Levi perfectly captures the wonder of a teenage boy in a hero’s body. Mark Strong also does a great job “hamming it up” as the villain, Dr. Sivana. However, don’t expect mind-blowing action scenes on par with the MCU. Billy Batson is an untrained kid. Consequently, the fights feel smaller and more personal. While this makes sense for the plot, I felt slightly unfulfilled by the lack of large-scale battles. CHARACTER: The Billy Batson Disconnect My biggest issue in this Shazam Movie 2019 Review concerns the lead performance. Asher Angel plays the young Billy Batson as broody and introspective. Conversely, Zachary Levi plays the hero version with over-the-top playfulness. This discrepancy breaks the illusion. It feels like they are playing two entirely different people. I wish the actors had compromised on a shared personality. This smoothing out would have made the character’s transformation much more believable for the audience. VERDICT: The Final Shazam Movie 2019 Review Overall, Shazam! is dumb fun. If you don’t think too hard, you will have a great time. It suggests that DC is finally finding its own path rather than just playing catch-up with Marvel. This move was for the best. Fun Factor: 8/10 Action: 5/10 Overall Rating: 3/5 Stars Check out our other DC movie reviews: Wonder Woman: Dead Earth Review The Dark Knight Returns Review Want to see the hero in action? Buy Shazam! on Amazon.
Shazam Movie 2019 Review: A Fun But Flawed DC Adventure Read More »
