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]
Thor (2011) – Does It Still Hold Up? Read More »
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
Review – Heavy Metal (1981) Read More »
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 »
Directed by: Neil Marshall Produced by: Martin Bernfeld Written by: Andrew Cosby Starring: David Harbour & Ian McShane Release Date: April 11th 2019 (UK) Review – Hellboy (2019) Whilst taking notes for my review for Hellboy 2019, I realised that if the movie actually has one thing going for it; it’s that it’s impressive. It is impressive in the sense that it actually made me question the futility of time and why I was wasting my short time on this earth re-watching this atrocious piece of trash. There were several times whilst watching the film that I actually couldn’t quite bring myself to believe how bad what I was witnessing onscreen really was. This might be the worst film I have ever seen. It without a doubt took the crown of the worst superhero movie ever made from Fan4stic when it was released and is frankly downright insulting to Hellboy fans. I still cannot believe that they chose to make this trash over another movie with Ron Perlman and Del Toro. Almost every single aspect of this movie is garbage and there are hardly any redeeming features. Let’s talk about the main character; this movie’s version of Hellboy. We all knew going in that David Harbour had some pretty big shoes to fill, as following Perlman’s take on the character was never going to be easy. In Harbour’s defence, pretty much the only slightly positive aspect of this version of the character is the fact that you can tell that Harbour is doing the very best with the extremely poor material he has been given to work with. Most of his lines are awful and the way that his character is written as a moaning, whiny teenager is actually insulting to the character. Also, the excessive makeup he is wearing means that he is hardly able to emote with his mouth. When he is talking, his mouth simply opens and closes like a puppet and it is painfully obvious that the dialogue has been dubbed in later and even that has not been done very well. The other slight positive in this movie was getting to see Hellboy in his full demonic getup with long horns and donning the flaming crown and sword. While this sequence was pretty cool, unfortunately this is the only fleeting glimpse of coolness we get before we are right back to the crap. One of the most memorable elements of the Del Toro Hellboy movies were the cast, unfortunately they have been substituted with an insufferably annoying lot of replacements. The actress playing Alice may give the worst performance that I have ever seen in a comic book movie, (and I saw Polar!) Every single line that she uttered was extremely cringe-worthy and poorly delivered. Daniel Dae Kim was almost as bad as Hellboy’s other sidekick. Again, a lot of his lines were ADR’d in later and really shoddily done. Ian McShane plays Broom, the scientist that found Hellboy and adopted him and he is clearly sleepwalking his way through this role for the sake of an easy paycheck. As is Milla Jovovich, who plays a stereotypical villainous witch and does absolutely nothing new here that we haven’t seen her do before in other movies. Over my years of watching almost every comic book movie that releases, I have seen my fair share of cheap, cartoony looking CGI, but this takes the cake. Almost every scene in the movie features some kind of CGI creature and they are all on a similar level of quality to an unfinished student project. One moment where it really stood out was the fight with the giants, – where we were subjected to not only one bad CGI giant, but three of them. The scene is also shot in broad daylight, which really does the bad CGI no favours. Not once did anything in this movie look better than the effects in the Del Toro movies which came out 10+ years ago. At this point in my Hellboy review, I’ve decided that I’m going to spoil the end of the movie, because seriously who even cares at this point? The absolute worst part of CGI in the entire movie, is during one of the final scenes where Ian McShane comes back to speak to Hellboy as a ghost. The CG in this scene is genuinely on par with the Rock’s CG in in the Scorpion King. Yes, it really is that bad. The soundtrack is so misused here also. The songs featured themselves are all half decent songs, but they do not work in the context of this film and they add absolutely nothing to the scenes that they are used in. The editing is also horrible. There were several times that I was reminded of the cheap editing in shows like Buffy The Vampire Slayer. The last thing that I want to talk about is the tone and humour, (or lack of,) present throughout the film. The movie opens with a flashback scene showing King Arthur chopping up the witch. The scene is being narrated by Ian McShane and it is chock-full of diabolically awful dialogue and insufferably cheesy line delivery. Whilst watching it I thought, “Oh they are really hamming it up here and going for a really corny tone for these flashback scenes.” I then swiftly came to the soul-crushing conclusion that no, – this was how the next 2 hours of this movie was going to go. The awful sense of humour is actually comparable to that in a poor quality kids film, with gross out burp and kiss jokes to boot. What happened to the darker, more horror orientated tone that we were teased with when the movie was in pre-production? Any semblance of that is sorely lacking here and it is a real shame because I would have quite liked
Review – Hellboy (2019) Read More »
Directed by: David F. Sandberg Produced by: Geoff Johns & Dwayne Johnson Written by: Henry Gayden & Darren Lemke Starring: Zachary Levi & Mark Strong Release Date: April 5th 2019 (UK) Review – Shazam! (2019) Being the big ol’ geek that I am, I usually know the source material of the superhero movie I am going to see pretty well. Shazam was an exception to this, – other than the infamous Captain Marvel/Shazam copyright battle between Marvel and DC’s lawyers over the years and the fact that he is a teenage boy who transforms into a grown man who looks like Superman with a similar power set, – I didn’t know much about the character going in. Watching Shazam for review, I enjoyed certain aspects of it, but it does fall short in other areas. Something that I always wonder is how Mark Millar managed to get away with creating his own, ‘original,’ comic book character called Superior. Superior bears multiple similarities to Shazam, – to the point that I am surprised that DC have never attempted to sue Millar for blatant plagiarism. In a word, Shazam is fun. I enjoyed my time with it and although this was only my second viewing of the film, I would still watch it again. I enjoyed seeing Mark Strong hamming it up as the movie’s villain and Zachary Levi does a great job in the titular role. Also, his chemistry with Jack Dylan Grazer’s character is a huge highlight of the film for me. The SFX are on point for the most part other than the fairly cartoony representations of the 7 deadly sins monsters. There is also a charming, dumb, pure, innocence to the movie that really shines through the entire thing. My biggest issue with the movie is Asher Angel as Billy Batson when he’s not Shazam. Not necessarily because he is a bad actor or anything, but more because of how he chose to play the role. He comes across as broody and introspective, almost the total opposite of how Zachary Levi comes across as Shazam with his over the top playfulness and silly puns. This discrepancy is prevalent to the point where the illusion that these two actors were playing the same character is entirely broken and it is as if they are just playing two totally different characters with entirely opposite personalities that are just never seen in the same room. I feel like a bit of smoothing out could have been done between the actors to come to a compromise where they could both deliver their respective lines whilst still believably playing the same character. Also, something that you should probably know going in is that this is a comedy with lessons about family and responsibility before it is a Superhero/Action movie. It does make sense within the context of the film that there are no epic action scenes as Billy is just an untrained everyday kid that has been given a bunch of amazing powers that he is still getting to grips with, but don’t expect any mind-blowing action scenes on par with MCU movies etc. Even though I guess it makes sense that there wasn’t anything too impressive in terms of action scenes, I remember being left a little bit unfulfilled as I left the cinema after seeing the movie the first time, that the film is more insistent on showing us tender family moments rather than huge scale superhero battles. Overall, Shazam is dumb fun. Don’t think too hard about it and you will almost certainly have a great time watching it. This movie was the first to suggest that the fun factor of DC films seems to be on the up and they had dropped the dour tone of their Batman/Superman stories set up by Zack Snyder. It seems now that they seem to have almost totally abandoned the idea of following in Marvel’s footsteps of tying movies together in order to lead up to a team up blockbuster altogether and this movie was an early sign of that. That move was for the best and was what they should have been doing from the start rather than trying to win a losing battle and play catch up with a franchise that has been building for an entire decade at that point.
Review – Shazam! (2019) Read More »
