streaming movies comedy free

Directed by : Jerry Bruckheimer, Francine Maisler, Don Simpson, Michael Bay, John Vallone, Christian Wagner, Virginia Cook-McGowan, Rhona Meyers, David M. O'Dell, Mark Mancina

Produced by : Jerry Bruckheimer, Francine Maisler, Don Simpson, Michael Bay, John Vallone, Christian Wagner, Virginia Cook-McGowan, Rhona Meyers, David M. O'Dell, Mark Mancina

Starring : Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Téa Leoni, Tchéky Karyo, Joe Pantoliano, Marg Helgenberger, Michael Imperioli, Theresa Randle, Anna Levine, Nestor Serrano

Company : Columbia Pictures, Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer Films, Sony Pictures

Release date(s) : 1995-04-07

Running time :118 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $19,000,000

Storyline : Fans of a pre-_Terminator_ Bay are gonna love it, and I can see where it succeeds, but personally _Bad Boys_ makes me kinda uncomfortable.

_Final rating:★★½ - Not quite for me, but I definitely get the appeal._

Directed by : Joel Silver, Shane Black, Shane Black, Philippe Rousselot, Sala Baker, Sala Baker, Sarah Halley Finn, Richard Bridgland, Kym Barrett, John Ottman

Produced by : Joel Silver, Shane Black, Shane Black, Philippe Rousselot, Sala Baker, Sala Baker, Sarah Halley Finn, Richard Bridgland, Kym Barrett, John Ottman

Starring : Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling, Angourie Rice, Matt Bomer, Margaret Qualley, Yaya DaCosta, Keith David, Kim Basinger, Beau Knapp, Lois Smith

Company : Silver Pictures, Waypoint Entertainment, Bloom, Nice Guys, Misty Mountains, Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s) : 2016-05-15

Running time :116 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $50,000,000

Storyline : > An unexpected and thoroughly entertained retro comedy!

It all began from this year's Oscars, I saw this pair for the first time and I knew its their film promotion strategy. So I went to look for the full details and I thought I'll end up as another silly comedy like 'Daddy's Home'. That's why I did not bother to check it out its teaser and trailer, but now I feel terrible for my crappy judgement. Because this was an awesome movie, definitely not just in the comedy category, but overall one of the best films of the year and it should be in everybody's top ten or twenty and nothing less.

It is a retro type film that takes place in the late 70s, LA. Where two private investigators unlikely come together to probe a mysteriously reappeared porn star from the dead as what her aunt says. But later that connects with another high profile missing girl case and so with all the leads, these two goes the length risking their lives to solve it. The remaining story reveals whether they succeed or end up as the losers.

It was from the director of 'Iron Man 3' who wrote it keeping in mind as a television series, but later turned into this beautiful comedy. The first thing is I loved the Ryan and Russell's performances. They totally nailed it, especially Ryan Gosling in many comedy scenes. I think I laughed a lot and better after a long time. That's a surprise, you know, I did not think they can do comedies, but they're beyond all the praising words.

It's not just two of them, there is a mini 'Nancy Drew Reporter' kind of character. A teen girl joins them in the investigation and her part as well had a great impact on the narration. You would think you can predict the story, but it is a well written screenplay with many twists. Everybody did their job so well, even the two hours did not look too long, but went very quick. The cast, crew, production, all must return for a sequel and I hope it will happen very soon. A must see film, but for the grown ups only.

8/10
I've never been a Ryan Gosling fan. No movie ever before has come as close to turning me around in that than _The Nice Guys_.

Director Shane Black is in top form with broad appeal, terrific performances, and honestly more humour than anything I've seen in years.

_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._
Waltons, Poronography, Tricky Dicky, Hitler, Equanimity, Bumble Bees ... And Stuff!

The Nice Guys is directed by Shane Black and Black co-writes the screenplay with Anthony Bagarozzi. It stars Russell Crowe, Ryan Gosling and Angourie Rice. Music is by John Ottman and David Buckley and cinematography by Philippe Rousselot.

1977 Los Angeles and a private detective and a muscle for hire enforcer wind up on the same case looking for a missing girl. Can opposites really attract? More importantly, can they survive not just the perils of a case that gets murkier the longer it goes on? But also each other?

I don't care if Colonel Mustard did it in the study with a candlestick. I just wanna know who he did it with and get the pictures.

How wonderful to have had Shane Black back in his comfort zone and producing such a joyful buddy buddy neo-noir of considerable substance. It was eleven years since the superb Kiss Kiss Bang Bang had reminded us that Black had few peers when it came to blending high action macho twosomes who are also armed with sharp tongues to match, this was after all the guy who also penned Lethal Weapon and The Last Boy Scout. The idea for The Nice Guys had sat in gestation for a number of years, finally it was unleashed to reward fans of his work and for those in sync with the style of film making he homages.

Much like his other buddy scriptings, we are in the company of two mismatched guys. Gosling's ex-cop Holland March is a bit goofy, afraid of the sight of blood and morally bankrupt. Crowe's muscle for hire Jackson Healy beats people up for money, but he's a stand-up guy, likes his pet fish, even has a hero streak. What binds them together is troubled family baggage, that they are both men in search of a better world, to be better men themselves, and thus Black - to give them a chance of life improvement - pitches them into the seamy underbelly of the L.A. pornography industry - with some corruption elsewhere thrown into the equation.

As a coupling March and Healy prove to be a riot. Crowe is menacing and funny with it, Gosling is affably flaky but charm personified, and thankfully both men have a knack for visual comedy (see Gosling's Lou Costello homage and Crowe's reaction to a henchman's act of fish murder). Crucially both actors can deliver killer lines, which is an absolute must for a Shane Black inspired production, for here there is never any let up, zingers are unbound. Then there is Rice (superb and actually the third lead in the play) as March's 13 year old daughter, she's got youthful zest and a killer matter of fact skill in reacting smartly to the two men currently dominating her life.

The L.A. of the 70s is expertly designed, all blink blink blinkity blink neon lighting, side-burns and disco music, dubious fashions and protest groups protesting about the most mundane of things. Then you got the pornography angle, the 70s a hot-bed (no pun intended) for the sex sells profiteers, the perfect setting for Black to trawl through it all in noir clobber. As a noir piece it has it all, femme fatales, thugs, conspiracies, voice overs and an array of colourfully odd characters (excitable and troubling henchmen, a porno Pinocchio, a young lad willing to flash the contents of his underpants for cash!). And of course there's mysteries to be solved and rocks to be upturned, all of which is played out in a whirl of stylish violence, situational comedy and fluid camera work.

Black kind of wants it all, to stay cool whilst having wry observations on the Americana of the era, and he enjoys going close to the knuckle when he can, which to some (not me) will come off as a shock value humour tactic just to ruffle feathers. It's also a minor itch that he sort of snatches from his previous works in search of reassurance - note for instance the similarities between the opening to Lethal Weapon and here with The Nice Guys. But itches be damned, so much fun and hidden dramatic depth on show here, a real treasure that makes you wish Black would stroll down neo-noir lane a bit more often. Don't believe me? Then may Richard Nixon come after you the next time you go for a swim in the pool! 9/10

Directed by : Ronna Kress, Sala Baker, Lauren Shuler Donner, Stan Lee, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Sean Haworth, Simon Kinberg, Angus Strathie, Bill Corso

Produced by : Ronna Kress, Sala Baker, Lauren Shuler Donner, Stan Lee, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Sean Haworth, Simon Kinberg, Angus Strathie, Bill Corso

Starring : Stan Lee, Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, T. J. Miller, Brianna Hildebrand, Gina Carano, Ed Skrein, Stefan Kapičić, Karan Soni, Michael Benyaer

Company : Marvel Entertainment, TSG Entertainment, 20th Century Fox, Genre Films, The Donners' Company

Release date(s) : 2016-02-09

Running time :108 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $58,000,000

Storyline : A funny movie with a romantic love story.

Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is a former Special Forces operative who now works as a mercenary. His world comes crashing down when evil scientist Ajax (Ed Skrein) tortures, disfigures and transforms him into Deadpool.

The rogue experiment leaves Deadpool with accelerated healing powers and a twisted sense of humor. With help from mutant allies Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand), Deadpool uses his new skills to hunt down the man who nearly destroyed his life.
I actually enjoyed the movie so much that i'll recommend it to all my friends, at first i didn't really want to watch it because i'm not into super hero movies at all, but i did anyway, i mean people were talking so much about it i had to see it myself and what an awesome choice i made. The good thing about this movie is that Deadpool is a hero but in a very comedic way, you don't usually expect comedy from a superhero film but this one was full of comedy and the way they treated the plot was amazing, it was there, humor was there in every scene, even when there was fighting or romance or any other scene, the writers managed to add comedy everywhere in a very good way that'll surprisingly make you want to watch it again, and again. Thank you for taking the time read my review and if you're asking yourself if you should watch this movie, it's a definite Yes.
> So this guy in the red suit came and broke some records...

I was not a Deadpool fan and I'm still not, but like any superhero films I'd pleasure watching it. The other reason was, we had other superheroes in our time, so this guy is kind of new to me. It was a stunning launch to the big screen for the Deadpool as well as for this new director. This film was merely an introduction tale than a fully stretched story. Like how a human becomes a mutant and later who seeks a revenge for ruining his natural life. But it yet to explain a couple of things and I hope it all will be revealed in its sequel.

I am happy for Ryan Reynolds to get another chance, because his previous comic book character did not received well. I certainly liked the film, but nowadays there are plenty of superheroes to choose, in that, Deadpool's not in my top 5. So I am happy he joined the 'X-Men', because I never liked the boring 'X-Men' films or its characters, but I do love its spinoff 'Wolverine'. I'll definitely look forward for his solo films like 'Wolverine'.

This film broke a few records like the best box office so far for an 'X-Men' installment. A short film with the present and flashback narration shared the screen piece by piece alternatively. This was a strong R rated film so far I have seen in a superhero theme and there were plenty of other films referred. No offense to the people who liked it (and those who are going watch will do the same), but in my personal opinion it was a bit over-celebrated.

6½/10
Though I have always been a DC enthusiast, I was intrigued by the idea of the Deadpool movie, and knew I'd end up watching it (I probably see 70% of DC films that are released and maybe 20% of Marvel ones). I enjoyed its definitely postmodern approach--and wish Reynolds' Green Lantern movie had one-tenth the humour and charm that THIS film had.

It'll be very interesting to see how comic-book movies are affected, both short- and long-term by its massive success.
This film was very funny. Ryan Reynolds was made for this role. The innuendos did get a bit much though.

It was well written and the direction was very good but it did go into a territory that it was trying to make fun of. I got bored of all the action hero conventions after a while.

★★★½
As a comic book fan, I was fairly dubious about Deadpool’s cinematic outing. I wasn't altogether sure that a film that would obviously have to be fun, self-referential and self-aware could also be able to talk about a character who not only becomes seriously ill, but also struggles to keep a grip on his sanity well enough to do the character justice.

When I watched the film, it was clear that I had been over-thinking. Perhaps the makers of the film had thought the same as me. Perhaps they thought that trying to be lighthearted and slightly dark at the same time would be like trying to keep too many balls in the air. I say that because the issue of Deadpool’s sanity, or lack thereof, is only touched upon. If that is the case, I think it is quite a clever decision in a ‘let's not try to run before we can walk’ kind of a way. If not, Tim Miller has still given us a very enjoyable film, in which, Ryan Reynolds shines as an extremely good comedic actor.
After what I honestly think is the best promotional & viral marketing campaign a film has had, probably ever, the Deadpool feature film is finally here! And it's... Alright.

I always try to manage expectations with these things, but after the aforementioned advertisements as well as multiple critics I highly regard the opinions of raving about it (John Campea of Collider for example gave the film his seventh 5-out-of-5 in his entire career) and my well-documented appreciation for the character of Deadpool, not to mention it's higher MPAA rating, there's only so neutral you can be going in. Still, I don't think my own personal biases had me too overhyped for Deadpool, I think I can fairly lay the lion's share of my underwhelming experience at the film itself.

I should start out by saying that I didn't dislike Deadpool, I'm giving it a positive rating, and I recommend that people go watch it. Three stars for me is not a low score at all, I am glad I watched the movie and would happily watch it again, this is not a scathing review; Ryan Reynolds has tried his hand at the comic book film no less than five times, and of those five movies, Deadpool is inarguably the best.

Also worth noting that among those other four films, Ryan Reynolds was not the problem in them, but they were all truly bad movies.

The way in which Deadpool is done is pretty impressive, we get all the gore-laden action, R-rated comedy, quip-havery and fourth-wall-breaking you could want from a feature of his own. There are lots of meta-references to previous work to the past failings of both Reynolds as well as the Fox Studio itself. It's non-linear. It's 100% non-serious, almost a comedy before an action film. It's like the 22 Jump Street of the superhero genre. Stylistically, it's a completely fresh comic book movie.

Which is why the complete juxtaposition of how unbelievably generic the actual plot is, is so jarring. It's not only completely unoriginal, it's sometimes downright bland. The "how" is great, but the core of the "what" feels completely uninspired, and these two aspects clash up against each other very unpleasantly.

Points go out to the work done between Ryan Reynolds and Morena Baccarin, although the majority of their characters' relationship is montaged through, the actors themselves had a great on-screen chemistry. I'm also totally on board for a Deadpool sequel (which has been greenlit) or seeing Deadpool show up in other X-franchise properties. But that doesn't mean I can give Deadpool a pass on the things that didn't gel for me.

63%

-Gimly

Directed by : Jeanne McCarthy, David Arnold, Sean Haworth, Neal H. Moritz, Debra Neil-Fisher, Grant Van Der Slagt, Peter Lyons Collister, Pete Antico, Tim Miller, Junkie XL

Produced by : Jeanne McCarthy, David Arnold, Sean Haworth, Neal H. Moritz, Debra Neil-Fisher, Grant Van Der Slagt, Peter Lyons Collister, Pete Antico, Tim Miller, Junkie XL

Starring : Ben Schwartz, James Marsden, Jim Carrey, Tika Sumpter, Natasha Rothwell, Adam Pally, Lee Majdoub, Neal McDonough, Tom Butler, Frank C. Turner

Company : Original Film, Blur Studios, Marza Animation Planet, Paramount, SEGA, DJ2 Entertainment, Digital Makeup Group, Stories International

Release date(s) : 2020-02-12

Running time :99 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English, हिन्दी, Italiano, 日本語

Budget :  $85,000,000

Storyline : I had high expectation for Sonic, simply because I love the concept of "super-speed" but it didn't deliver. The latest trailer had all the good scenes. A lot of scenes involving super-speed are incoherent and made no sense. You cannot have a missile frozen in time and a the same time a button push going faster (that's just one example). Jim Carrey nailed the role as Eggman.

https://wefishmovies.herokuapp.com/views/movie-info.php?tmdb_id=454626
In what could only be a dead-of-winter miracle in the Upside Down, I just saw an inspired-by a video game movie that wasn’t absolutely terrible. There is nothing about “Sonic the Hedgehog” that seems like it will be watchable, much less actually good, but I’ve been proven wrong by this lively, wacky, and campy family film. There’s oodles of fun to be had here by both adults and kids.

This live action adventure comedy is based on the blockbuster SEGA game that centers around a speedy bright blue hedgehog named Sonic. Basing a movie on a flimsy gaming character will be ill-advised at least 95% of the time, but this movie finds the ideal balance between a lively (if basic) original story and well-placed Easter eggs for fans. Here, Sonic (voiced by Ben Schwartz) has a series of misadventures on Earth with his newfound human friend Tom (James Marsden), a small-town police officer. The two have to work together to stop the villainous Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey) from capturing Sonic for his evil experiments.

The themes of friendship and loneliness are at play, and the cast does a great job keeping things fun. Marsden is ridiculously likable and goofy as an everyman, and Schwartz brings an empathy that carries the majority of the film with his voice performance. Best of all is Carrey, hamming it up with a manic stamina that’ll remind you why you always loved him in the first place.

There are plenty of action scenes and rude humor (and a couple of strange, over-the-top scenes that read as advertisements for Olive Garden), which are all entertaining enough to recommend “Sonic” for a fun family night out at the movies.
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

Sonic the Hedgehog was one of my Most Anticipated Movies of 2020, not because I expected it to be one of the best films of the year, but due to the controversy that surrounded it. The original design of Sonic was awful, and a lot of people still blame the VFX artists/animators unfairly. These people work extra hours, they're underpaid, and they were given an impossible schedule to deliver a masterful work. Fortunately, most people now recognize that the studio and all of its execs are the ones to blame.

The Internet voiced its opinion in a very polite manner (as usual), but this time, an unprecedented event occurred: the studio actually listened and decided to delay the movie until Sonic received a better treatment visually. Now, I firmly believe that, in any other case, this would be extremely dangerous. I don't think the audience should have this much power over the studios, especially through social media. I mean, if studios changed their films every time people criticized a design or an adaptation decision, movies would be constantly delayed. However…

In this particular case, I'm super glad they did it. One question a lot of people might ask is, "how would this film perform with the old design?". It would be horrible. There's absolutely no chance of people enjoying this movie with the previous Sonic. This new design not only honors the character's visuals, but it complements the film's tone. Jim Carrey delivers an incredibly cartoonish performance, which would become way too out-of-place if Sonic looked (awfully) real. Having both the hero and villain being/acting like a cartoon, that awkwardness doesn't exist.

Sonic truly is the best part of the whole thing. If you've played the games and if you carry an emotional connection to this character, there are tons of scenes for you to enjoy. Sonic looks wonderful, sounds fantastic (excellent voice work from Ben Schwartz), and best of all, his personality resembles the videogame character. Everything that's directly Sonic-related is perfectly faithful to the source material, which will definitely please every Sonic fan. That's pretty much my main message: if you're a fan of the little blue guy, I can't imagine anyone being disappointed.

Unfortunately, he's honestly the only great aspect of the movie. It's really cool to watch Jim Carrey going back to his roots and having so much fun with his role. However, he's very hit-and-miss. When he's condescending someone, he's quite funny, but Carrey's mannerisms don't always work. Still, once again, I believe he's very faithful to the original Dr. Robotnik, who was by no means a "normal" person. James Marsden is really good as Tom, but his character never goes beyond "Sonic's pal".

My main issues are regarding the screenplay. No, I never expected it to be an Oscar-worthy narrative. I just wanted a simple story that allowed Sonic to shine, and in the film's defense, it's indeed a basic plot. However, the sheer abundance of cliches, the lack of any surprises, and the logical questions raised by some narrative decisions are too much to handle, in my opinion. There are three product placement scenes that are some of the laziest, obvious, cringe-worthy examples since the Transformers' movies. It feels like the film stops to have a few commercials.

Subplots that serve as tension-building during the movie fail to have a resolution by the end. Storylines that were once important are entirely forgotten and never addressed again. Every single character serves as comic-relief, everyone gets to be the "clown". I repeat: I never expected a brilliant screenplay. But is it too much to ask the writers to have as much dedication and creativity as the VFX artists who handled Sonic? The latter group worked like crazy to deliver a perfect design. Why can't the writers try harder to offer a more compelling, unique, and rational story?

The way Dr. Robotnik comes into play and the level of permission he has to do whatever he desires to is laughable. Everything human-related raises too many eyebrows and rolls too many eyes. I've commented about the film online, and some people addressed me by saying, "you're overanalyzing /you're expecting too much from it". I wholeheartedly understand these observations, I genuinely do. The thing is: I don't believe I'm overthinking, let alone expecting it to be a masterpiece. Why should people simply accept that a movie "can't be better than what it is"? Why can't people ask for the potential that a Sonic film has? Why should I be content that it's "not bad"?

I'm completely honest: I wanted to like this movie way more than most people. The whole controversy concerning Sonic's design and the unfair blame that the VFX artists received, left me with an overwhelming desire to absolutely love this film, so I could support the massive work that these people went through. I love everything that's Sonic-related in the movie. His design, voice, and personality are spot-on, and I can't imagine a single fan of the little blue hedgehog being disappointed. However, even with a really good cast and a 90s' Jim Carrey, Sonic the Hedgehog is packed with extreme cliches and narrative decisions that roll too many eyes. Some of the most obvious and cringe-worthy product placement since Michael Bay's Transformers. Characters built from Hollywood's recycling box and side stories are thrown away with no resolution. It's a fun adventure that any family can enjoy on a Sunday afternoon, but I can't lie to myself: I wish it could have been more entertaining and less frustrating story-wise.

Rating: C+
The world needed a hero -- it got a hedgehog. Powered with incredible speed, Sonic embraces his new home on Earth -- until he accidentally knocks out the power grid, sparking the attention of uncool evil genius Dr. Robotnik. Now, it's supervillain vs. supersonic in an all-out race across the globe to stop Robotnik from using Sonic's unique power to achieve world domination.
Jim Carrey as a bad guy... great bad guy, full of zeal for being the worst bad character ever, and not being his usual self. Sonic - the main character is fun, even if his backround story sucks when compared to other characters. Still, it is fun, full of energy, and a good movie to share with kids.
Cute, family-friendly, comedy that's entertaining enough and sees Jim Carrey back in whacky, over-the-top form that's been missing the past decade plus it seems, and he works so well in this kind of film. Nothing innovative and the visual effects are hit or miss, however Sonic's design was well done (so thankfully the initial version was scrapped and redone from scratch). **3.5/5**
My roommate is a **huge** Sonic fan, and she loved it. I never really cared for the games as a kid, but I liked them a lot more than I did this movie.

_Final rating:★½: - Boring/disappointing. Avoid where possible._

Directed by : David Lazan, Jackie Burch, Sala Baker, Sala Baker, David Farmer, Tom Johnson, Sarah Halley Finn, Shepherd Frankel, Paul Rudd, Stan Lee

Produced by : David Lazan, Jackie Burch, Sala Baker, Sala Baker, David Farmer, Tom Johnson, Sarah Halley Finn, Shepherd Frankel, Paul Rudd, Stan Lee

Starring : Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Bobby Cannavale, Corey Stoll, Anthony Mackie, Judy Greer, Abby Ryder Fortson, Michael Peña, David Dastmalchian

Company : Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Pictures

Release date(s) : 2015-07-14

Running time :117 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $130,000,000

Storyline : I loved it it was so much fun and very funny, another marvel masterpiece
When one thinks of a typical super-hero actioner, they imagine the boisterous boundaries that are associated with such an explosive genre: eye-popping special effects, outlandish and grand-standing villains, world domination escapades, complex yet flashy super-heroes that seem unreal and unapologetic and a big scale of unbelievable escapism that is tellingly becoming of a comic book epic on the big screen for the hungry eyes of the giddy moviegoer. Remember, all these described elements are not a bad thing when it comes to larger than life comic book/superhero fantasies. In fact, we almost insist that our volt-minded vehicles have some kinetic kick to its pulsating, pithy adventures. After all, there is certainly nothing wrong with that approach to the cinematic sensationalism of summertime popcorn pleasers and the costumed heroes that take us on that daring, rollicking ride of magical mayhem.

However, director Peyton Reed’s ‘Ant-Man’ symbolizes a different texture and tone to the familiar action-packed world of Marvel Comics’ outrageous universe both on the printed pages and in the dark movie theaters. It does not necessarily use the overwrought or ultra-stimulating tactics to sell its percolating product as a super-charged heroic fable of mighty manipulators out to save the planet in the tradition of frantic favorites such as ‘The Avengers’ film franchise for instance. Instead, ‘Ant-Man’ relies on its small and intimate take of quirkiness, introspection, a gentle doomsday message of despair and a measurement of an awkward man that wears his bugged-out wardrobe with a sense of curiosity and conviction. In essence, ‘Ant-Man’ is a costumed caper that is high-spirited in its low-key excitement…something quite refreshing and revered in the wild and wacky world of Marvel Comics’ representation of the super-studs and sasses that invade our cinematic sensibilities in the hazy days of summer.

‘Ant-Man’ lead Paul Rudd, an affable actor that has shown various levels of competence in both comedies and dramas over the years, is the unlikely source to don an ant-oriented attire and let his charm and cheekiness take over as the tiny bugged-eyed avenger of right and might. Rudd plays Scott Lang, a former troubled lawbreaker and gifted engineer whose demons come back to haunt him when he gets involved in the burglary shenanigans with his bad news buddies (T.I. and Michael Pena). The reason for Lang’s lure back to crime: a cockeyed but convenient way to win over the affections of his estranged young daughter.

Interestingly, another great analytical mind of mechanics and science in stand-offish Hank Pym (Oscar-winner Michael Douglas) is spotlighted as he too struggles to relate to his daughter as well in the pretty Hope Van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly). Anyhow, Pym has a colorful backstory as it is revealed that he used to save the world from harm as the underrated crime-fighter Ant-Man. There was no glory or special recognition for Pym’s heroics as the buggy super-hero but his devotion to his crime-stopping craft was realized nevertheless.

As ANT-MAN Paul Rudd's Scott Lang has plans to stop the criminnal foolishness besides raiding a giant-sized picnic basket in Peyton Reed's modest costume caper.
As ANT-MAN Paul Rudd’s Scott Lang has plans to stop the criminal foolishness besides raiding a giant-sized picnic basket in Peyton Reed’s modest costume caper.
The conflicted father-daughter tandem of Pym and Hope eventually recruit the beleaguered Lang to climb into the exo-skeletal red-and-black suit and become the current Ant-Man to continue the mission of promoting goodness over evil. In this specific case, Lang’s Ant-Man is asked to foil the nefarious agenda of Pym’s former protege and associate Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) who threatens to expose the revolutionary shrinking technology to anyone sinister that offers him an insane and immediate price for such secretive scientific information that could jeopardize mankind in the long run. Of course, it goes without saying, that Cross has an ominous alter-ego in the vile Yellowjacket whose back-and-forth clashing with Lang’s Ant-Man leads to the calculating and corrosive chess game of one skillful insidious insect trying to outwit and outmaneuver a conscientious one.

Some may dismiss ‘Ant-Man’ as being too low-grade, cheesy and incidental in its confrontational canvas of saints versus sinners. Still, Reed’s handling of his Marvel-inspired ‘battle of the bugs’ is a winning formula in simplicity because it does not have to be rooted in a spectacular and showy landscape as the other successful bombastic blockbusters that come out of the frivolous factory of Hollywood. Essentially, ‘Ant-Man’ demonstrates the right kind of personality and prestige for its presentation as a scaled-down comic book actioner steeped in the personalized disillusionment of the characterizations and their assorted psyches. Sure, ‘Ant-Man’ will not let anyone forget its popular competitor in the much glorified and iconic standing of another insect-fighting Marvel mastermind in ‘Spider-Ma’n anytime soon. Yet Scott Lang’s Ant-Man is just as angst-ridden, impish, awkward and devoted as Peter Parker’s resilient web-headed wonder Spidey.

The drama unfolds so convincingly in ‘Ant-Man’ not so much because of the dire dilemma of comicbook goodness and badness but because of the examination of deteriorating relations between broken men and their families or more specifically between fathers and daughters. Both Rudd and Douglas are committed to their roles as the Ant-Men that saved the world with ease past and present but could not say the same thing about rescuing the domestic responsibilities that eluded them under their own roofs. As Lang tries to find an opening for forgiveness toward his little girl and remarried ex-wife (Judy Greer), his current adviser Pym struggles to put the pieces together with a disgruntled Hope that blames her father for the neglect of her well-being as well as the death of her beloved late mother known as the Wasp, a super-heroine that shined in her own shadow of accomplishment.

‘Ant-Man’ is a soulfully weird, witty sliced-down spectacle of a comicbook film that is rare in its skin to deliver the message of a connection not just to stamping out the cartoonish crime and chaos that is routinely found in the playful playground of Marvel’s movie machine of high-powered personalities armed with skillful brute and brilliance. It also has something called heart and hope as it tackles the alienation and isolation of fathers and their vulnerable daughters. It will take more than a gigantic can of Raid to destroy the indomitable presence of ‘Ant-Man’ and what his hedonistic heroics, both physical and psychological, bring to the prized picnic table.

Ant-Man (2015)

Walt Disney Studios

1 hr. 57 mins.

Starring: Paul Rudd, Michael Douglas, Evangeline Lilly, Crey Stall, Michael Pena, Tip “T.I.” Harris, Judy Greer, Bobby Cannavale, Wood Harris and Abby Ryder Fortson

Directed by: Peyton Reed

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Genre: Comic Book Fantasy, Super-heroes, Action and Adventure

Critic’s Rating: *** stars (out of 4 stars)
The Pocket Rocket.

Given the production problems and its long gestation period, Ant-Man is arguably far better than it had right to be. Unsurprisingly with a Marvel Super Hero film, the critical reactions have been mixed, but given it's not as gargantuan as most Marvel pics it proves to have a big entertaining heart. A pic cunningly viewing the Marvel Universe from a different angle, whilst also not over egging the pudding.

The effects work is impressive, the origin story narrative engrossing and with it carrying a lightness of touch, and there's a very enjoyable cast enthusiastically buying into the comic book frivolity. Sure, some of it's just plain daft, our hero's powers are hardly blunderbuss stuff, while the family melodramas bubbling away feel tired, but come the glorious finale, pandering to the child in us all, it's another Marvel winner readying itself for further adventures of Ant-Man. 7.5/10
> Size doesn't matter if he's a superhero who committed to save the world.

My confession is I never read 'Ant-man' comics and I never knew such kind of superhero even exist in Marvel till this movie was announced. (But I know Danish film 'Antboy'.) So I'm glad they brought cinematic version of 'Ant-man' and I'm sure he'll return to the next 'Avengers' as they promoted strongly in this film itself to know what would be the audience response. I don't know others, but I definitely welcome the idea.

Another CGI magic, another Marvel's wonder. As long as they pick the right cast and crew with a good story, the sci-fi like this continues to rule the cinema world. It was a great team work, that must be appreciated. As usual the top notch visuals as well the performances, even the sidekicks. But I was surprised to see when Paul Rudd was attached to this project. I believed it would be a comedy sci-fi packed with full of action, and I was wrong. It was a simple tale, a heist theme and of course it was fun to watch, but never was a comedy movie.

A wonderful beginning, especially for the first film in the series. You know strong foundation is the key to raise a building above. I know the sequels would only get better by progressing and it should be. Because in all the Marvel's superhero flicks, this one was the most family and young kids friendly. That does not mean there were no violence, but from the title to the characters and presentation, all were so casual and can be understood by all.

It was so great to see a legend like Michael Douglas to be a part in the modern movie. Now I am eager to see Evangeline Lily as Wasp-girl in the follow-up. It would be like Peter Pan and Tinker Bell, but in a sci-fi version. The extras were very interesting, I enjoyed them as well. If you're are yet to see the film, don't expect anything like Disney's 'Honey' trilogy, after all, if you enjoy the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) then you would do same for it which is the twelfth to follow.

7.5/10
I like Paul Rudd and was hoping this would be as funny as 'The Guardians of the Galaxy' but it wasn't. It looked good and the direction was solid but I think it suffered from the constant screenplay rewrites that the film underwent by changing the screenwriters (Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish).

I also felt it was a bit too long-winded and it was unbalanced. However, the main good feature in this film was the special effects.

★★★
I have to say that I did not have great hopes for this movie. However, I found it surprisingly enjoyable. As can be expected from a Marvel super hero movie it is not the most intelligent plot around but instead rather heavy on special effects.

Having said that the plot is not bad given the context. I have never read any of the Ant-Man comics so I had no idea what to expect. The little expectation I had was of some guy turning into some ant like creature smashing things left right and center. So it was somewhat of a surprise to me when I found out that the guy was actually shrinking himself to ant size. Actually I went a bit “what the f…” when I first realized this and felt that this was going to be boring.

However, in the end, I felt it worked out quite well. If it would have just been about some guy shrinking himself then it would indeed have been somewhat boring but the added coolness of this guy being able to command armies of bad-ass ants really helped stave of the boredom.

As I wrote above it is a Marvel super hero movie so it is heavy on special effects and, personally, I felt they where quite okay. There is of course quite a bit of action in the movie as well as a bit of humour. I quite liked the parts where the Ant-Man and his nemesis slugged it out in a children’s room and a giant size Thomas the Tank Engine was thrown through the roof and into the garden. Maybe I liked it because Thomas the Tank Engine is a TV show that my kids liked to watch when they were smaller. There where of course a few of the usual Hollywood silly, brain-dead stunts like the tank scene. It could have been so cool but it was really ruined by the total lack of intelligence in the stunt following the cool revelation.

I really liked Michael Douglas as Dr. Hank Pym as well as Evangeline Lilly as Hope Van Dyne. I was not too impressed by Paul Rudd but on the while I guess he was not too bad. It is a bit of a shame though that when Hollywood feels they need to throw in a bit of family drama they always have to throw in a divorce. It is rather depressing for us that have lived through such a tragedy after all.

Bottom line, this was a surprisingly enjoyable movie. Far better than quite a few of the super hero movies that Marvel/Hollywood have produced like for instance the abysmal Spiderman movies although that is of course a personal opinion.
Less spectacle than most MCU films have been serving up, particularly in phase two, but the story and characterisation is actually a little stronger than the past couple of tales Marvel has served up.

Villain Darren Cross, AKA “Yellowjacket” (originally a hero in the comics) lacks the onscreen presence of top tier Marvel-evil Loki, but is certainly one of the stronger offerings the MCU has given us. His twisted relationship with his former mentor gives another level to this Marvel film not seen since _Winter Soldier_.

Not so much a super hero film as a super heist film, _Ant-Man_ was a welcome refreshment to the comic book movie party, and though I always like to give myself some time to find exactly where MCU films fit in my overall experience, at the moment I would say _Ant-Man_ sits somewhere comfortably in the middle, maybe even a bit below, but is still well worth a watch, even for those who aren’t deeply involved with the film series as a whole.

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
***Ant-Man?***

Released in 2015, "Ant-Man" stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, a cat burglar who is offered redemption and the opportunity to be a hero. Michael Douglas plays his mentor, Hank Pym, and Evangeline Lilly Pym's daughter; meanwhile Corey Stoll co-stars as the heavy.

In my vast arsenal of old comics I have only one issue where Ant-Man is the main star: Marvel Feature #10, which featured Hank Pym as the hero, not to mention his wife, the Wasp, AKA Janet van Dyne. The character's run in that comic ceased with that very issue. By the 80s Scott Lang, a good-intentioned thief, became Ant-Man after stealing Pym's Ant-Man suit to save his daughter. With the encouragement of Pym, Lang became Ant-Man full-time.

The movie is based on these events and I was surprised at how entertaining it is considering how relatively minor the hero is. The movie even makes a joke about this when Ant-Man comes face-to-face with the Falcon (Anthony Mackie). Speaking of which, it's great to see the Falcon in action. It's also great to see Yellowjacket who, in the comics, was Hank Pym after Lang took over as Ant-Man. In the movie Yellowjacket is the villain (Stoll), which is okay since Pym's Yellowjacket in the comics sort of became a villain when he had a mental breakdown and was eventually divorced by Janet, the Wasp. The filmmakers incidentally did an excellent job with the Yellowjacket suit.

"Ant-Man" was a surprise hit at the box office and understandably so. It's a quality superhero flick done with style and brimming with confidence. It's nothing more than this, but that's all it needs to be. It's nice to see Michael Douglas who was, believe-it-or-not, 70 years-old during shooting. He shines in the movie as Pym and could easily pass for ten years younger. I also really liked the Quantum Realm sequence when Lang is reduced to microscopic size.

The film runs 117 minutes and was shot in Georgia and San Francisco, CA. ADDITIONAL CAST: Judy Greer, Bobby Cannavale and Michael Peña.

GRADE: B+/A-
Ant-Man is a much needed breath of fresh air from all the city-breaking, galaxy saving epicness of the past five Marvel movies. It's a nice, light, fun heist movie with some pretty cool effects and a great cast of characters.

Michael Pena, T.I. and David Dastmalchian make this movie so much more enjoyable. Not that Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, and Corey Still aren't great, but those three as a sidekick trio crack me up.

Edgar Wright's stamp is all over this movie and it's a shame his directorial touch is missing, because he would have known what to remove to make it even better.

But all in all, Ant-Man is great entertainment with a feel good story about a man trying to be the hero his kid thinks he is.

Directed by : John Papsidera, K.C. Hodenfield, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Christine Wada, Jeong Jeong-hun, Gavin Polone, Martin Whist, David Sardy

Produced by : John Papsidera, K.C. Hodenfield, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Rhett Reese, Christine Wada, Jeong Jeong-hun, Gavin Polone, Martin Whist, David Sardy

Starring : Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin, Emma Stone, Zoey Deutch, Avan Jogia, Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson, Thomas Middleditch, Ronny Mathew

Company : Pariah, Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures

Release date(s) : 2019-10-09

Running time :99 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $42,000,000

Storyline : Even with its flaws, ‘Zombieland: Double Tap’ doesn’t overstay its welcome with its 99-minute run time, and remains a solid piece of popcorn entertainment. Although it doesn’t push any boundaries, it’s harmless fun (the Homer zombie of horror films, if you will... that’ll make more sense after you’ve seen it). So stumble into a cinema and join these friends on a reunion - sure, one filled with endless blood, guts and brains, but that’s half the fun of a zombie comedy, right?
- Charlie David Page

Read Charlie's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-zombieland-double-tap-the-gangs-back-for-a-brainless-zombie-comedy-sequel
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)

As you probably know by now, since I posted the original film's review a few hours ago, I loved the first Zombieland. I defend that it's a zombie cult classic, and I was genuinely pumped for its sequel. It didn't go through any external controversy (something quite rare nowadays), the cast didn't say anything wrong in the interviews (haters didn't have enough words to twist this time around), Ruben Fleischer returns as the director, as well as Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (plus a new member, Dave Callaham) as the screenwriters. If a studio wants to do a 10-year sequel, it might as well get the creators and original cast back together, right?!

That's what I love the most about Double Tap. It didn't lose the original's essence, and it didn't forget what made it so successful. The cast's chemistry can be felt thousands of miles away, but the new additions also fit in seamlessly. Zoey Deutch portrays Madison, a purposefully stereotypical "dumb blonde girl" who has some of the funniest scenes as well as some of the most cringe-worthy (Deutch gives an excellent performance, though). And Rosario Dawson plays Nevada, basically a women version of Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), which means she has a bunch of badass action sequences. As for the old gang, well…

Everyone delivers great performances, but this time, Harrelson really elevated his character. Not only does he have the expected awesome kickass moments, but he also offers some emotionally compelling displays. Emma Stone (Wichita) and Abigail Breslin (Little Rock) keep being amazing as their characters, and Jesse Eisenberg (Columbus) does get a bit too … Jesse Eisenberg, but it never stops feeling natural, having in mind how his character acts. These four are the heart of the whole show. Hence, getting the original cast back together is halfway through success, even more than in the first movie. Story-wise is where I do have some complaints, unfortunately.

Maybe it's due to the fact that I watched 2009's Zombieland just a couple of hours before Double Tap's screening, but I wish that Fleischer and his team were more creative. Sure, the original was 10 years ago, and not everyone is going to rewatch the original (especially not right before), so it's expected that a lot of classic moments are recreated in some shape or form. However, for an extended period, I felt that I was watching the exact same film, just with older characters. I know I'm going to hear some of Columbus' original famous rules, but there's a surprising lack of new ones. I know Tal is going to repeat some of his catchphrases, but he's an imaginative guy, he can think of fresh ones (which he does say in the last minutes, but still).

To move the plot forward or actually make the story happen, a lot of questionable things occur, and not in the sense of them not being rational (it's not like Zombieland is a groundbreaking piece of storytelling). It's the apparent lack of character development through all of the years that have passed, and I'm not addressing their personalities being the same (it's pretty normal). To create this movie, characters make decisions that don't feel right, having in mind they spent so much time together. It's impossible for love, trust, and emotional attachment not to be developed throughout such a long time. So, while Little Rock's arc is understandable and relatable, Wichita and Columbus' lacks convincing arguments, in my opinion. Both make decisions too dumb for such intelligent characters, but I guess "that's love".

Once again, the technical features that defined the original so clearly are seamlessly employed in its sequel. Beautiful production design, cool soundtrack, fantastic application of practical effects and real sets, which nowadays are getting rarer. The slightly longer runtime still manages to carry a fast pace, which is always a good attribute, and it's packed with thrilling, hilarious, bloody action sequences. Amusing pop culture references, and the most significant moment of all: Double Tap has one of the best, if not THE best, mid-credits scene of the year! Don't you dare leave the theater, it's right at the beginning of the credits, so stay in your seat!

All in all, Zombieland: Double Tap pays a decent homage to the original zombie cult classic by getting everyone (cast and crew) back together, and delivering yet another entertaining flick. By maintaining the essence of the first film, Ruben Fleischer is able to capture the outstanding cast's chemistry, as well as present those amazingly entertaining action sequences. Even though the central narrative isn't as straightforward and interesting as in the original, it's still captivating enough for the audience to care about. There is an excessive amount of callbacks to classic catchphrases, rules, or moments, which shows a bit of a lack of imagination to create new material. While it's not as funny or entertaining as the 2009's movie, it's still a good time. If you're a fan of Zombieland, definitely watch it! If not, well… Nut up and watch it or shut up and let others enjoy it.

Rating: B
_**Just as funny and irreverent as the original, even if it hits all the same beats**_

> _I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead._

- Jimmy Buffett; "Growing Older But Not Up" (1981)

The original _Zombieland_ (2009) was something of a sleeper hit, earning over $100 million against a $24 million budget, becoming the most financially successful zombie movie ever made, until it was surpassed by Marc Forster's asinine _World War Z_ (2013). Smart, funny, and self-aware, it didn't take itself too seriously, and it had bucket-loads of heart, but it was hardly a film crying out for a sequel. And as time passed, it seemed more and more unlikely such a sequel would happen. However, after a decade in development hell, _Zombieland: Double Tap_ has arrived, and boy is it one of the most unnecessary sequels I've seen in quite some time. However, as unnecessary as it is, it's also extremely enjoyable. It doesn't do a whole lot that wasn't in the original, but the irreverent sense of humour, fourth wall breaks, sharp character interactions, and, most importantly, shedloads of charm are all present and accounted for. Directed by Ruben Fleischer (who helmed the original) and written by Rhett Rees and Paul Wernick (who wrote the original), along with Dave Callaham, _Double Tap_ may not take too many risks, but it's a fine companion piece.

10 years after the events in the first film, the quartet is still together and still getting on one another's nerves – there's the neurotic but sweet Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg doing his Jessie Eisenberg thing), the crass but caring Tallahassee (a wonderfully acerbic Woody Harrelson), the sarcastic Wichita (a dead-pan Emma Stone) and the laidback Little Rock (Abigail Breslin doing a lot with the little she's given). As we meet them, they're in the process of taking up residence in the White House – Columbus and Wichita are still a couple, but recently, she's started to wonder if perhaps their relationship is more important to him than it is to her; Little Rock is now a young woman who resents the fact that Tallahassee still treats her like she's 11; and Tallahassee, for his part, hasn't changed an iota. After Columbus proposes to Wichita (using the Hope Diamond), she and Little Rock skip town, but she returns a month later, telling the others that Little Rock ditched her and headed to a supposed zombie-free commune. And so the trio reluctantly set out to find her. Along the way, we're introduced to Madison (Zoey Deutch, who completely steals the film), a millennial bimbo who's been holed up in walk-in freezer; Berkeley (Avan Jogia), a peace-loving hippie; Nevada (Rosario Dawson), a tough-as-nails Elvis aficionado; and Albuquerque (Luke Wilson) and Flagstaff (Thomas Middleditch), who are eerily similar to Tallahassee and Columbus (the reveal of which was spoiled by the trailer). There's also a new breed of zombie, which is faster, stronger, and more intelligent than the regular kind, and which can only be killed with multiple head-shots.

And that's about it as far as the plot goes. The original film came at a time when the zombie genre was just starting to be taken more seriously – Danny Boyle's _28 Days Later_ and Juan Carlos Fresnadillo's _28 Weeks Later_ were released in 2002 and 2007, respectively, introducing all manner of innovations and turning many of the genre tropes on their head; Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza's _[•REC]_ films were released in 2007 and 2009, setting a new standard for found footage films; _The Walking Dead_ debuted in 2010, and for the first few seasons it was as well-reviewed a show as you could find (until it turned into repetitive self-parody). Zombies also featured heavily in video game franchises of the era, such as _Siren_ (2003), _Dead Rising_ (2006), _Dead Space_ (2008), and _Dead Island_ (2011). _Zombieland_ cared about none of that – it was, in fact, the inverse of such titles, a film that didn't take anything seriously, least of all itself.

With this in mind, although 10 years have passed and the landscape is very different, one of the sequel's most successful elements is that next to nothing has changed; in essence, it acknowledges the gap precisely by ignoring it. So, Columbus's opening voiceover specifically refers to the long break as he thanks us for choosing _Double Tap_ when there is such "_a wide choice of zombie entertainment_" and Madison tells Tallahassee his catchphrase is "_very 2009_", but the film as a whole feels as if it was shot immediately after the original. Of course, this is important insofar as in the universe of the franchise, the last decade has been very different to the last decade of our reality, so the filmmakers can't layer in too many contemporary references – although Columbus does mention how "_unrealistic_" _The Walking Dead_ comics are, there's a hilarious deconstruction of the concept of Uber, and there's a subtle allusion to Trump when Wichita sarcastically tells Tallassee he'd have brought "a real dignity" to the office of the presidency.

This factors into the performances as well, insofar as Columbus, Tallahassee, and Wichita are all broadly similar to how they were 10 years ago. Little Rock has changed significantly, but that's as much to do with the fact that she was a child in the original and is now a young woman. This lack of character development may sound like a bad thing, but really, the familiarity of the characters and their group dynamic has its own inherent charm, we welcome it because it's familiar, with the cast essentially doing the same things they did in the original. Speaking of performances, Zoey Deutch completely owns every scene she's in. Sure, the character is clichéd as all hell and, on paper, she should be all kinds of annoying, but that she isn't, is a testament to Deutch's warm performance, finding genuine pathos amidst the perpetually peppy and cheerful high-energy ditz. She also has great chemistry with the original cast, especially Harrelson. In fact, all of the new actors have terrific chemistry, which is nice to see insofar as effortless chemistry was one of the hallmarks of the original.

In terms of problems, as mentioned, the film doesn't do a whole lot that wasn't in the original – the characters are the same, the narrative beats are the same, the group dynamic is the same, the sense of humour is the same – and for some, this will certainly be an issue. Indeed, as much as I enjoyed the film, I would have liked to see it take more risks (there's certainly nothing here to rival the inspired Bill Murray cameo). Because of this blanket similarity, there is a sense in which the sequel isn't really its own thing, it's defined primarily by what the original did rather than forging its own path, and a lot of the meta-humour only works if you know the original. Another problem is that it fails to do much with an interesting set-up, which sees women chaffing against traditional gender roles and the identities conferred on them by men. Once the gang end up on the road, this theme is pretty much forgotten (even with the introduction of Nevada, who seems more like a man's idea of what a tough woman should be than her own person). There are also more than a few clichés, primarily in relation to Madison (as blond a character as you'll ever meet) and the one-note Berkeley (a weed-smoking gun-hating hippie, who is literally introduced by way of a sitar on the soundtrack).

_Zombieland: Double Tap_ is undemanding and doesn't completely justify its existence, but it also does justice to the original, and never for one second does it take itself seriously. The effortlessness with which it slots into the original's groove is either funny in its own right or poor writing, depending on your perspective, but the film is smart enough to know and acknowledge that it feels slightly out of place in 2019, in a way the 2009 original did not. And if a little of the spark has been lost, the warmth, the characters, the jokes, and the playfulness more than make up for it.

Directed by : Zoë Bell, Zoë Bell, Javier Aguirresarobe, Dan Hennah, David Farmer, Sarah Halley Finn, Mark Mothersbaugh, Stan Lee, Stan Lee, Kevin Feige

Produced by : Zoë Bell, Zoë Bell, Javier Aguirresarobe, Dan Hennah, David Farmer, Sarah Halley Finn, Mark Mothersbaugh, Stan Lee, Stan Lee, Kevin Feige

Starring : Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Cate Blanchett, Tessa Thompson, Jeff Goldblum, Idris Elba, Karl Urban, Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Hopkins, Benedict Cumberbatch

Company : Marvel Studios, Walt Disney Pictures

Release date(s) : 2017-10-25

Running time :131 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $180,000,000

Storyline : _Ragnarok_ is a tough one to review completely without spoiler, so I'll keep this brief:

* I was bothered by a small number of things that happened in this movie.
* I was in love with a large number of things that happened in this movie.
* _Thor: Ragnarok_ is not the MCU's best movie.
* _Thor: Ragnarok_ is the MCU's most fun movie.
* Can we **please** have a worldwide ban on putting anything that happens in the third act of your movie, in said movie's trailers?
Thank you for your time. 4 stars.


_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._
The Best CBM movie of 2017

The film is one of the most entertaining of the MCU films so far and a HUGE improvement over Thor: The Dark World. Cate Blanchett as the villainess Hela, the Goddess of Death, is a far better villain that TDW's lame Malekith. Kat Dennings' annoying Darcy and Natalie Portman's bland Jane are not missed at all. Instead, we get Tessa Thompson's badass Valkyrie, who can hold her own in a fight and isn't just there just as a love interest for Thor (Chris Hemsworth). Jeff Goldblum is hilarious as Grandmaster, who runs the gladiator fights on the planet Sakaar. But the real pleasure of the movie is watching the love-hate brother relationship between Thor and his adoptive brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). The relationship between the two men was the only redeeming feature of TDW, and it's great to see it expanded in this movie. Also great is seeing Thor buddy up with Bruce Banner/ Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the fate of The Warriors Three. They deserved better than that. But otherwise, it's a great comic book movie.
From minute one, Thor Ragnarok bursts onto the screen with a new found energy, style, Jeff Goldblum, beautiful use of colours and shot compositions, an amazing 80s inspired music score, and comedy that's actually funny. Somehow, Thor Ragnarok is both the darkest film in the entire MCU given that it deals with the destruction of an entire world, and the most lighthearted.

Thor Ragnarok is very much a Taika Waititi film that uses Marvel lore and characters. It has many shocking twists, turns, witty comedy, and pleasant re-introductions (and introductions) to some of the MCU's best characters that I can't wait to see more of. Oh, and did I mention this movie has Jeff Goldblum?!
This movie sets a new bar for the MCU. It's funny, entertaining and VERY fun. It takes a completely different yet good turn from the past 2 movies and is a colourful blast.
Too bad. I loved the first two Thor movies and was expecting that the third one will hold up to the quality of the first two. But I guess today it's really hard to pull off a trilogy that'll ring throughout the years like how the Wachowskis did with the Matrix.
Marvel films are known for sneaking humor in between action sequences, but I don't know what they did with this one. The choreography was lame and I don't understand why Thor felt like he was trying too hard to be funny.
Despite all the hate surrounding this movie, I actually enjoyed it. If you're as big of a fan of "Thor" like me, then you pretty much just like everything that comes out with him on it.
Thor's character is great with the other Avengers, but he just doesn't do that well as a stand-alone character with his own storyline. It's sad because he had so much potential too.
Story could've been great but it seemed to me that the writers got lazy with the script and just opted to feed Thor some cheesy humor that made him seem like this kid who was trying too hard to be funny instead of the GOD of Thunder the first two films built him up to be.
I'm a big fan of Thor but I just couldn't bring myself to like what they did to him in this film. I get that he's going through tough times but turning him from being a thundering, huge god to a man-child who shoots lightning is such an insult to Thor.
I know not a lot of people found the humor to be funny but my family and I actually loved it!
As a big fan of stand-up comedy, I can say this one really delivered. Most of the jokes had perfect timing and executed in perfect deadpan. Would want another movie like this!
I really don't understand why everyone's hating this movie. I remember myself and everyone else in the cinema, laughing our asses off all throughout the movie.
Childish humor, the same fight scenes and although I gotta say that the plot was creative, it still didn't do it for me.
This wasn't the Thor movie I expected. Seeing as Marvel did so well with the first two Thor films, I'm surprised this turned out to be a big joke.
If you enjoy 8 year old humor and cheesy one-liners, then go ahead and watch this movie. Otherwise, go pick another film.
Meh it passed the time. I honestly didn't hate the film but didn't find it to be as entertaining as the other films Marvel has already put out.
This does it for me. I expected more from Thor as he is the God of Thunder and you could do so much with him but they weren't able to do that in this film.
Thor's soundtrack was always cool, but not on this film.
The two earlier Thor films had a more "godlike" tone to them. Why not keep that and use it with the third one? This is a huge downgrade for Thor.

Directed by : Brian Helgeland, Sheila Jaffe, Neil Spisak, Karen O'Hara, Edward Tise, Dan Webster, Neal H. Moritz, Patrick Loungway, Liza Richardson, Mark Wahlberg

Produced by : Brian Helgeland, Sheila Jaffe, Neil Spisak, Karen O'Hara, Edward Tise, Dan Webster, Neal H. Moritz, Patrick Loungway, Liza Richardson, Mark Wahlberg

Starring : Mark Wahlberg, Winston Duke, Alan Arkin, Iliza Shlesinger, Michael Gaston, Bokeem Woodbine, Marc Maron, James DuMont, Post Malone, Colleen Camp

Company : Film 44, Original Film, Closest to the Hole Productions, Leverage Entertainment

Release date(s) : 2020-03-06

Running time :110 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English, Español

Budget : 

Storyline : I'm so tired of Marky Mark, Jason Statham, Gerald Butler and all those old mfs doing the same "ex-cop/cop that takes on the corrupt on his own" movies. Don't watch this garbage.

Directed by : John Mathieson, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, John Davis, Danilo Bollettini, Oliver Scholl, Enzo Sisti, James Boyle

Produced by : John Mathieson, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, Guy Ritchie, John Davis, Danilo Bollettini, Oliver Scholl, Enzo Sisti, James Boyle

Starring : Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Luca Calvani, Sylvester Groth, Hugh Grant, Jared Harris, Christian Berkel, Misha Kuznetsov

Company : Wigram Productions, Davis Entertainment, RatPac-Dune Entertainment, Warner Bros. Pictures

Release date(s) : 2015-08-13

Running time :116 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :Italiano, English, Pусский, Deutsch

Budget :  $75,000,000

Storyline : The high-powered and hyper-kinetic ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ is a pulsating production that one would expect from the off-kilter imagination of writer-director Guy Ritchie whose flashy and furious actioners such as ‘Snatch’ and ‘Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels’ are indicative of the filmmaker’s excess frivolity. So it is not much of a shock that Ritchie’s big screen adaptation of the iconic 60s television series that featured the retro-suave Robert Vaughn and golden-haired heart-breaker David McCallum takes on a sleek, stylish and impishly erratic mix of intrigue and frolic.

The consensus is that ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ continues the wave of nifty and naughty-minded colourful espionage spectacles that seem to have invaded the summer of 2015. Perhaps when one cries ‘U.N.C.L.E.’ it will not be as challenging or convincingly crafty as the more cerebral and stimulating ‘Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation’. Still, Ritchie’s off-beat serving of ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ is mindless fun and roguishly cheeky.

Sure, at times the boisterous bounce in ‘U.N.C.L.E/’ feels rather strained as Ritchie’s foray into the James Bond-esque territory featuring the off-balance smoothness of twitchy twosome Brit Henry Cavill (the ‘Man of Steel’ star portraying American CIA Agent Napoleon Solo) and Armie Hammer (incidentally sporting a catchy and clever moniker) as Russian KGB Agent Illya Kuryakin spirals into a cliched cavalcade of mischievousness drowned out by surging surf music, crazy-minded and bright-coloured landscapes, perfect-looking protagonists and wildly penetrating predicaments in its manufactured action sequences. Nevertheless, ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ still generates a sense of rousing charm and insane impishness to carry out its agenda for off-the-cuff espionage escapist frolicking.

Some may not mind the make-up of ‘U.N.C.L.E.’ as a saucy buddy action flick in disguise as Cavill and Hammer drolly inhabit the kooky coolness of TV’s dynamic duo spies from yesteryear. Nobody will ever claim that Cavill and Hammer are trying to ape the small screen spying antics of original U.N.C.L.E. bad boys in the aforementioned Vaughn and McCallum any time soon. The exaggerated juiced-up chase scenes, the inclusion of high-volume spunk and wit, devious femme fatales that parade around as hormonal trophies…all add to the high-wire hedonism of Ritchie’s off-centered international gun-toting caper.

Ritchie’s co-written screenplay, along with Lionel Wigham of ‘Sherlock Holmes’ fame with ‘Harry Potter’ producer credits, does not provide much of a deep-seeded story other than its need to indulge the audience in its shifty shenanigans as an over-the-top ode to a classic couple of televised operatives that baby-boomers will fondly recall from their childhood reminiscences. The premise is somewhat painfully familiar as two clashing spy guys with different approaches to the espionage game join at the hip to stop a madman planning to engineer nuclear destruction for a vulnerable world. Of course, in attempting to stop such unthinkable madness we are overcome with the philosophical tactics and mannerisms of the targeted tandem looking to spread some spice along the way in saving the world from certain cartoonish devastation.

Solo is the capable cad whose free-spirit and ease on handling a sticky situation is met with instinctive, cavalier American ingenuity. Kuryakin, on the other hand, seems to be disciplined in his uptight ‘play-it-by-the-book’ demeanor as the cold Russian enforcer without a sense of straying from his boundaries. Together, this debonair ‘ying-and-yang’ pair of free-wheeling agents form as one in their mission to foil the demented deed of others. Isn’t that special?

In essence, ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ believes in its wheeling-and-dealing hype and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not pretend to be anything other than what it is at large, a spry, jet-setting caper where playful doom and gloom is played out against a backdrop of elegant locales not to mention a spruced-up soundtrack to accompany the animated proceedings. As usual Ritchie punctuates his theatrical releases with loose-minded lunacy happening at a fast pace. The outlandishness of ‘U.N.C.L.E.’ is truly true to form in the tradition of the funky and frenetic fables that Ritchie loves to spin at will.

Both Cavill and Hammer seem to get inspiration out of their dressy roles as the inventive spies with a knack for carousing and chaos. The wily women that are at the center of attention for Solo’s/Kuryakin’s romancing interests in Elizabeth Debicki’s vivacious Victoria and Alicia Vikander’s toxic Gaby is refreshingly stimulating and reinforces the suspenseful jolt. As the commanding Waverly that oversees Solo and Kuryakin, Hugh Grant does not hold a candle to the late great character actor Leo G. Carroll, that was so memorable as the head honcho that pushed the buttons in the background for both Solo’s ‘The Man From U.N.C.L.E.’ and later April Dancer’s (Stephanie Powers) ‘The Girl From U.N.C.L.E.’

So here is to the jousting ‘U.N.C.L.E.’ enjoying its considerable A.U.N.T (‘A Unique Nifty Time’) at the busy summertime box office.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)

Warner Bros. Pictures

1 hr 43 mins.

Starring: Henry Cavill, Armie Hammer, Alicia Vikander, Elizabeth Debicki, Sylvester Groth, Christian Berkel, Luca Calvani, Misha Kuznetsov and Hugh Grant

Directed and Co-Written by: Guy Ritchie

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Genre: Spy/Espionage/Action & Adventure/Spy Thriller

Critic’s rating: ** 1/2 stars (out of 4 stars)
I know Ritchie gets a lot of flak for being a Tarantino copyist, but I really enjoy the films of the Brit that I've seen so far. They're great fun and more enjoyable than the grim-a-thons that the James Bond, Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne franchises have churned out, though I love those as well. I thought the casting was a nice in-joke, pairing DC Comics' Superman with Marvel's Captain America, and I have loved Alicia Vikander's work since seeing her years ago in 'A Royal Affair'. I thought at the time she exuded both acting chops and sensuality out of every pore and would be a real monster if she ever went international--which she definitely has, both here and in 'Ex Machina'. Though I have never seen the TV series, I felt the camaraderie between the stars was refreshing, the car chases and other stunts were excellent, and, in a year most saturated with spy films (thankfully, for enthusiasts such as I), although it tanked at the box office, I for one hope it becomes a franchise. Why put the brakes on a good thing?...
> A very pleasing action-comedy with the balanced sensitive contents.

Another brilliant action-comedy from Guy Ritchie. I never saw the 60s television series of the same name, but this was very convenient for his style of portraying the tough men showing off their strength. The actors were simply wonderful, two year commitment by the two lead guys for this project definitely payed off well and Alicia Vikander filled the feminine void perfectly. I think it was one of the best trio in the movies I ever seen, very powerful and I hope it lasts for a trilogy.

The story sets in the 60s during the cold war tension between the world's two superpowers. But the film's specialty was, it does not render clash between them, instead they come together to fight the rogue forces who plan blitz against them. Very humourous, highly entertaining with a swift pace and amazing action sequences.

I don't think the narration had any unique twist and turn, instead I call it a smartly written screenplay. So the overall movie was so good, but not a top-notch. My disappointment came from the technical side in some of parts, especially the bike and car chase in the last quarter that you can clearly tell a fake (greenscreen/bluescreen shot). Other than the main plot and its clever scenes, the movie did not offer distinctive features. Just taking away a ½ point is what places it on a line between good and average, but I definitely consider it a good.

6½/10
_The Man from UNCLE_ 2015 #Action #Comedy Origin story of UNCLE 8/10 tinyurl.com/hvakyx4 🎬 🃏 👍 ⏰ 🔫 🎼

In the early 1960s, CIA agent Napoleon Solo competes with KGB agent Illya Kuryakin to find Gaby Teller's nuclear scientist father. They need to get her out of East Germany first, then follow leads to the father, who seems to be building a bomb for a rich family in Italy. Will they stop the use of the nuclear device? Will Napoleon survive torture by Gaby's Nazi uncle? Be ready to laugh; this is not a dark humourless POS like the superhero films; rather, it's a light hearted romp.

*Image courtesy of The Movie Database*

Directed by : Craig Wood, David Farmer, Tom Johnson, Louise Frogley, Sarah Halley Finn, Shepherd Frankel, Gene Serdena, Paul Rudd, Stan Lee, Stan Lee

Produced by : Craig Wood, David Farmer, Tom Johnson, Louise Frogley, Sarah Halley Finn, Shepherd Frankel, Gene Serdena, Paul Rudd, Stan Lee, Stan Lee

Starring : Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Peña, Walton Goggins, Bobby Cannavale, Judy Greer, T.I., David Dastmalchian, Hannah John-Kamen, Abby Ryder Fortson

Company : Marvel Studios

Release date(s) : 2018-07-04

Running time :119 Minutes

Country  : United States

Language :English

Budget :  $140,000,000

Storyline : It's fun to see big stuff get real little and little stuff get real big, but _Ant-Man and the Wasp_ suffers the same problems of its predecessor, except this time with an added issue, one that effects many movies (and even more TV shows), the problem of "The entire movie didn't have to happen if people would just have had normal human conversations with one another".

_Final rating:★★★ - I liked it. Would personally recommend you give it a go._
Actually quite good! It's like a less-weird, but more fun version of a Deadpool - in the sense that it is both filled with action but also with fun acting.

I recommend it for a Saturday evening. It is quite wholesome.
I did indeed enjoy this movie…somewhat. However I cannot say that I was overly impressed.

The story was okay. I would not expect a deep and thought provoking story from a super hero movie nor would I want it. It served as a decent enough vehicle for moving things forward.

Most of the actors did a good enough job of the role they were given which in some cases was pretty much mission impossible given some of the overly silly characters in the movie. In particular I got tired of Luis almost before the first scenes he was in had finished. He was just so silly that you started to wonder what age the target audience was. Jimmy Woo was not far behind.

I think this leads to my main gripe with the movie. I expected a super hero movie but what I got was a fairly lame comedy with super heroes in it. It was just too much comic elements in it for me. I could probably have liked it if the jokes were somewhat intelligent but, for me, they were not. They alternated between overly silly and stupid characters, slap-stick and simple fall-on-your ass jokes.

What about the bad guy? Well, first off, there was not really a distinct bad guy but a hole bunch of them. Unfortunately none of them had any real bad guy charisma. I assume that Sonny was supposed to be the main bad guy and he certainly had enough evil lunatic air about him to fit that but again…too silly. Then we have the lame Jimmy Woo who was just annoying. The Ghost was probably the best one but then she was not really a bad guy was she?

I did like most of the action and the special effects though. The playing around with shrinking and returning to normal size, or greater, was both cool and funny. This shrinking business is of course a difficult theme to work with from a science and logic point of view. For instance, if you shrink a car to the size of a toy car it still weighs like a full size one and you cannot just pick it up. And what about the lab popping up and down all the time? Why weren’t everything shaken to bits inside when they started to run around with it? And don’t get me started about electricity and plumbing. But then, in this kind of movie I would say just just have to turn off that part of your brain. It made for some cool scenes after all.

I also did like that the story was more of a down to Earth story. No overall galactic plot, no snapping of fingers to make…well you know what. Okay, there was the post credit scenes which was a bit of an annoying tie in. Perhaps best of all though, I could not really feel much SJW or other form of politically correct preaching being showed down my throat. Today that is a great plus for any movie.

So, to sum up, I did enjoy it but it was not great and I was indeed a little bit disappointed at the end.
For fans of the first one, which includes me, Ant-Man and the Wasp is more of what you like. More heisting. More car chases. More Giant Man. More of the three wombats. More humour. More mediocre villains. More romance between Scott and Hope. More family bonding. And of course, more quantum realm. It's fun. It's light hearted. It works.

That post credit scene though .... 😲
“Ant-Man and the Wasp” is a really weird Marvel movie.

Like its pint-sized superhero, the film doesn’t quite fit in with the typical MCU big screen canon and is a laid back yet thoroughly forgettable entry into the fatigued superhero genre. The story doesn’t try to tie too much together (save for a mid-credits scene), there’s not an over-dependence on rambunctious CGI effects, and the attempts at humor feel oddly forced (I’d estimate only 30% of the jokes land successfully). Despite the lame title characters and the ever-likeable Paul Rudd‘s offhand charisma, this film gives the impression that it’s an average C student trying desperately to overcome underdog status and achieve a place on the honor roll.

The best part of the film besides Rudd (he makes this one, just like every movie he’s cast in, impossible not to enjoy at least a little), are the special effects. Sure, they’re all computer generated, but they’re some of the most creative since 2016’s “Doctor Strange.” The worst part of the film is its contrived humor. It’s stiff, often cringe-worthy, and sticks out like a sore thumb as it grows increasingly desperate. The film’s multiple writers couldn’t have helped things, and the barrage of thoughtless, lazy jokes quickly wore me down.

Also lacking is suspense and a viable antagonist. There’s the oddly disturbing Ghost (Hannah John-Kamen), a woman who is living in unbearable pain and appears to be a formidable foe for Ant-Man (Rudd), The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), and Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). But then she suddenly finds her heart and the evil disappears. The same goes for Dr. Foster (Laurence Fishburne), a professor who also has a near immediate change of heart. The thin rescue mission premise of extracting Hank’s wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) from the Quantum Realm after being trapped there for the last 30 years also means there’s not too much else to root for.

The quantum rules change on a whim to fit the action sequences, with a sometimes shrinking and sometimes growing super suit. And cars. And buildings. The exposition dialogue is long-winded and repetitive, and the ill-advised “comic” relief from Michael Peña is not snarky enough to feel fresh or new (see “Thor: Ragnarok“).

This is a shallow, pointless film that becomes an exhausting bore.