Pop Cult BS

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. - Review

2015-08-21T16:46:00.000-05:00

Aka: Cliche 60s American and Cliche Russian Team Up

Does anyone find it ironic that this film has an English actor playing an American and an American actor playing a Russian? I guess Guy Ritchie knew the irony behind this casting, and well it works perfectly well.

The Plot

After suave American Agent, Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill), rescues Gabby Teller (Alicia Vikander), a mechanic and daughter of a Nazi Scientist, from Communist East Berlin, he winds up being partnered with a Russian Agent, Ilya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer), to stop Nazi Radicals from forcing Gabby's father into creating an Atom Bomb. Their only lead is Victoria Vinciguerra (Elizabeth Debicki), a Nazi sympathizer who is connected to Gabby's family. As tensions between America and Russia escalate, can Solo and Ilya put aside their differences to accomplish the mission and possibly save the world?

Review

Guy Ritchie may not necessarily be one of my favorite directors, but he is definitely someone I always give a chance. He won me over with his two breakout films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, but although I found his later films entertaining, mainly the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes series, he hasn't exactly solidified himself as someone who I need to watch immediately. And unfortunately for him, this film still gives me that feeling. However, fortunately for him, this film also maintains my stance of always giving him a chance.

Based on a classic 60s TV Show, Man from UNCLE is the very definition of an old fashion spy movie. Kingsman may have been a love letter and throwback to old spy films, but this one IS an old spy film. Which works well for it as well as against it. What definitely works for it is keeping the film in the 60s setting. The time was perfect as the backdrop for spy movies as you have America and Russia waiting to go to war with each other at any given moment. It also helps that the fashion is that midpoint between the suave sophistication of the 40s along with the sexiness that will over take the 70s. It just sells you with classic spy imagery, and it helps that Cavill and Hammer are playing stereotypes that fit in this setting.

Cavill has been on Hollywood's radar for YEARS and finally gets his chance to shine in the spotlight as Superman. Unfortunately his dour performance made people question why was everyone so impressed by this guy? Luckily here, Cavill exudes the charm and suave of Napoleon Solo extremely well, showing audiences why this guy was sought after for several high profile roles in the past before his big break. He shows he could be charismatic and lively, which will definitely help him in the long run, but it won't be enough to turn naysayers around to his side. Still, his cliche 60s American accent works really well for his character, especially given he is actually English...or Welsh...or...something not American. The one who is American though is Hammer, who also plays a cliche role in the film: the brutish Russian Spy. His turn as Ilya is not exactly ground breaking, as many people were already convinced this guy can act from the Social Network. However his cliche performance works hand in hand with Cavill's cliche performance as two stereotypes having to team up to fight a common enemy. At least no one can complain about casting problems, because they're both ironically casted.

But despite ironies in casting, the word cliche will come up a lot because in the end, this movie is definitely a cliche. Everything about it is a cliche because it is a cliche 60s spy movie that feels like it came out decades too late. Smart audiences in tune with how spy movies work will know how Vikander's Gabby and Debicki's villainous Victoria will operate before it happens in the story. There are no new twists to the genre, nor can there be because spy movies have done everything, and it doesn't try to claim it has one. This is probably the most pure 60s spy movie we'll ever get, and that is completely fine for me. But it does say something if the most exciting part of the film is the first half when the two agents meet for the first time and how they have to eventually work together. The second half is where things start heading to predictability and the fun feels forced rather than natural as it did in the first half. Nevertheless, the film still feels entertaining and engaging enough to keep you through. And it also doesn't hurt that all the leads in this movie are ridiculously sexy. Eye candy for ladies and gentlemen.

Final Thoughts

In the Year of the Spy movie, this may so far be the weakest entry. It may not be the worst, as the year isn't over yet, but it definitely won't be the best. But what it is the best at is bringing back the old 60s spy movie flavor. However it may have done so a little too literally. There are some modern filmmaking techniques and Guy Ritchie-isms in the film, but overall it still feels like a movie that came out decades too late. The cast is magnificent, particularly Cavill and Hammer, but their characters are exactly as you think they're going to be all the way up to the end. No real surprises, but still a great time.

SCORE: 7/10 - A decent time for a film that feels like its from a different time

Fantastic Four (2015) - Review

2015-08-08T14:11:00.000-05:00

"Say that again?" .... "Fantastic!"

Oh God, why? Why? WHYYYYYY??????????

The Plot

After nearly perfecting a teleportation device that he and his friend, Ben Grimm (Jaime Bell) have been working on as a child, Reed Richards (Miles Teller) is recruited by Dr. Storm (Reg E. Cathey) to join Baxter, a facility for the gifted to build a better future. To aide Reed on his quest to be the first to crack inter dimensional travel, Dr. Storm brings in his children, Sue (Kate Mara) and Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), along with a former gifted student, Victor (Toby Kebbell), to complete the machine. But once completed, their facility's advisor and government liaison, Dr. Allen (Tim Blake Nelson), decides to send a team of selected astronauts to be the first to use their invention. Not wanting to be sidelined for their success, Reed, Johnny, Ben, Victor and Sue highjack the first mission and successfully travel to a place they dub Planet Zero. But what they discover there, will not only change their lives, but their physical bodies as well.

Review

Let me just go right off the bat and say this... I love Chronicle. Love it. It is one of the best found footage movies I've ever seen. And I was highly impressed that director Josh Trank broke the record of being the youngest director to generate a blockbuster film at the age of 27. The last person who held that record? Steven Spielberg for directing JAWS at the age of 28. But JAWS was Spielberg's third film, whereas Chronicle was Trank's first film. Which makes it even more impressive. Though a lot of credit definitely should go to screenwriter Max Landis for crafting Trank's vision into realistic dialogue between young boys, it is still Trank's original vision. Which is why I was so heavily interested in his take on the Fantastic Four. From his interesting casting choices, to the fact that he was basing it heavily on Ultimate Fantastic Four, even all the way down to him stating it was going to be more like David Cronenberg's body horror films. I was hooked, and defended this movie against anyone who would say that it is nothing like the comic books.... then I saw it.

I wouldn't go down and say this is the worst movie I've ever seen. That title for me belongs to Transformers: Age of Extinction. But the feeling I had while walking out of this film was more than just disappointment. It was pity. I felt sorry for everyone who is involved with this movie. I felt sorry for the cast, I felt sorry for the studio and I even felt sorry for the director. It was like watching a car crash happen in slow motion with people you like in the vehicle managing to survive to live another day. That's how it felt, and I could probably use the car crash metaphor with how this movie goes.

Think of it as a road trip. At the beginning of the journey, you're all getting ready and feeling excited. That's what it was like at at the beginning of the movie involving the child versions of Reed Richards and Ben Grimm. It was filled with hope and optimism about how youth can accomplish great things if their minds are in the right place. Or in the case of the cliche parents, the wrong place. But cliche parents aside, it was a nice intro to a friendship. A friendship that should've carried over to when Teller and Bell took over as the present day incarnations of the characters. And while it does for a while at the beginning, it abruptly disappears later. More on that in a bit. But again, with the beginning of the road trip, that's when you're meeting up with all your friends who are coming along for the ride. That's where Mara, Jordan and Kebbell come into play as Sue, Johnny and Victor. It is cool seeing all of these young geniuses work together in order to accomplish creating something that could possibly change the world. But once the drive begins and the car pops a tire with a nail, that's when things start to go downhill.

The first act of the movie is brilliant, but the second half of the movie is when it becomes really clear that whoever was driving the car at the beginning is no longer in full control. Once the main four gain their powers, it is clear that there was suppose to be an entire body horror sequence that should've lasted the entire second act. But unfortunately, choppy editing makes it clear that whatever the second act was suppose to be has been trimmed down for the sake of getting faster to the superhero action. Which happens after abruptly time skipping midway through the movie to one year. That one year time skip completely destroys any sense of team building amongst the characters, which has been the central thrust of their comic stories. In here there is no sense of relationships being solidified by any of the team members. They are first horrified by what happens to them, one of them escapes government captivity, then skip one year later to see everyone seems to efficiently know how to use their powers now and suddenly are friends with everyone again. It is so jarring and not executed well that it is obvious several scenes are missing. And if you've seen the trailers, then you'll know most of the scenes in the trailer are missing from the movie.

But while the second act feels like there are scenes that could've been extended or added to make it flow better, the third act completely derails any hope you will have of things getting better. The best way to put it? Remember my road trip metaphor and how I left off with the tires blowing out? Well what if someone on the road tries to help you by trying to drive your car to the nearest town at full speed? With the tires still busted. And not even bothering to use the spare tire you have in the trunk. Because you are only a few miles away to your destination. And against all your gut instincts that tell you this is a bad idea, you still allow it to happen. That's what happened to the third act of this movie, and that's where the car crash happens.

Kebbell's Victor, who was barely developed at the beginning of the movie, yet there are clear hints as to who he is as well as his philosophy, is rescued after being left on Planet Zero for a year. And what happens when he comes back? He is now Doom and blah blah blah blah blah, wants to destroy the world all of a sudden. We don't get any incite as to why he suddenly believes he wants to do this. And also it was painfully obvious that everything involving Doom before and after the hallway Akira sequence was re-shot entirely. Because I have a strong feeling that his was not how Josh Trank wanted the movie to end. It is clear that his vision for this was definitely more like a Cronenberg face-off ala The Fly or Scanners, but that doesn't happen. It just turns into a cliche superhero battle that lacks any punch, despite having a lot of punches, and strange cheesy interactions between all the "heroes" who suddenly know how to work together. It's just so... so.... You know. A car crash. That thankfully everyone lived, but still have to be hospitalized in order to recover.

Final Thoughts

I want to say this is the worst superhero movie ever made, but the first act genuinely made me believe that I was watching something different than the standard superhero mold. It made me feel like I was watching a science fiction movie that abruptly shifts into a horror film then abruptly crashes and burns into a superhero film. I know there have been reports about Trank being unruly on set, but I can tell what kind of movie he wanted to make. He wanted to make a sci-fi horror movie that just happened to have superheroes in it. And unfortunately for him, the studio wanted a standard superhero movie. These two ways of thinking clash so severely that the end result is a muddled mess that starts off with so much promise, especially from the cast and crew, that then dive bombs into oblivion, especially when the cast appear to stop caring about what movie they're in by the end. I wish I could've seen the sci-fi horror epic I know this movie was suppose to be, but I guess we never will. And that's sad.

SCORE: 4/10 - 1 for Potential 2 for the Cast 3 for the Tone and 4 for a Pity Point

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation - Review

2015-07-31T20:25:00.000-05:00

It's official everyone...

Tom Cruise is completely insane... AND I FREAKING LOVE IT!

The Plot

After amassing a record of "wanton acts of mayhem" over the years, CIA Director Hunley motions for the dissolving of the Impossible Missions Force and have their assets absorbed into the CIA. As IMF Analyst, Brandt (Jeremy Renner), tries to stop Hunley, IMF Agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) finds himself targeted by a shadowy organization called The Syndicate, led by the even more mysterious Solomon Lane (Sean Harris). To prove that the IMF is still a viable force for good, Ethan makes it his mission to prove the existence of The Sydnicate while being the number one rogue fugitive on the CIA's list. He'll need help from Benji (Simon Pegg), Brandt, Luther (Ving Rhames) and the mysterious Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) in the ultimate cat and mouse game against an enemy that has been secretly causing them trouble for years.

Review

Once the now infamous "Tom Cruise is strapped to the side of a plane" scene takes off at the very BEGINNING of the movie... I suddenly had no idea what I was in for. Usually a scene like that would've taken place in the middle or at the end of the movie. But no, the infamous scene is what starts this movie off with a bang. It is a shot of adrenaline that prepares the audience for the insane ride that will follow. And if you believe nothing in this film can top that opening scene, then you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I have to give a lot of credit to director and writer Christopher McQuarrie. Mainly because for the first time, I believe he's the director who completely nailed what this franchise is suppose to be. Him and his co-writer, Drew Pearce, took all the best parts from the Mission franchise along with an examination of how summer blockbusters are suppose to operate and doesn't try to reinvent the formula but resuscitates it into something that can truly breathe. The concept of having the big money shot at the beginning of the movie was done to ensure that audiences will no longer be waiting for it to happen, but instead be focused on the movie and its story. It is a brilliant move that just elevates this film above its predecessors and its peers.

But one thing that definitely makes this movie stand above its peers is the utilization of the action within the story. Usually action happens for the sake of action. But good action is used to accelerate the plot. And in this film, every single action scene was warranted for the sake of progressing the plot further as well as developing character motivations. All of them, from Hunt's first fight with the Syndicate to the Opera House battle to the underwater scene that escalates to a car chase that then escalates into a motorcycle chase all keep building momentum towards the finale which has surprisingly not been spoiled in any of the trailers or commercials. Which makes the third act of the film even more impactful in that everything that has been used to promote the film has been from the beginning and middle, but never the end.

Tom Cruise proves that he is still in peak physical condition at 50, and is probably THE action star of this current generation. His charisma and dedication to this franchise continues to shine with incredible results. And thankfully his team behind the camera has finally found out who Ethan Hunt is suppose to be. He is not James Bond, which they tried to make him like in the second film, but a team leader who prioritizes the safety of his team first over himself. That combined with making him someone who can get hurt is what makes him such a compelling character. And thankfully he is surrounded by equally compelling teammates, with one literally outshining him.

Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner and Ving Rhames return as Benji, Brandt and Luther: Hunt's loyal friends. What truly makes them standout is how they're all utilized in the story at the most appropriate times. Pegg's Benji may have the most screen time of the three, and the most comic relief, but Pegg continues to prove that he is more than just a comedy actor. He is well rounded and looks right at home standing side by side with the likes of action men such as Cruise, Renner and Rhames. Speaking of the latter two, both of them are more utilized in a subplot that doesn't collide with the main plot of the movie till the third act, but Renner and Rhames were still utilized efficiently for the story. However, there is one person who is not a returning veteran, but a newcomer into the franchise.

Rebecca Ferguson will soon be the talk of the town, as her performance as Syndicate Agent (or is she?) Ilsa Faust is the biggest standout of the film. I always get irked by women who get cast as Bond Girls in James Bond films claiming they're "not your typical Bond Girl," then wind up being the typical Bond Girl with a little more to do. Thankfully in the Mission: Impossible franchise, there is no "Mission Impossible Girl." But if there had to be one to define that term, it would be Ferguson's Ilsa. She is probably the most well written ambiguous female spy character in a Hollywood blockbuster film while being extremely sexy and extremely efficient. What makes her so incredible is that you could easily take out Ethan Hunt and all the Mission Impossible characters, and still have an incredible spy film with her as the lead. She is so good that I hope she breaks the norm of female agents in previous Mission films never returning in the next one, because I want more of this incredible villainous/heroic (?) character.

But what about The Syndicate? The "Rogue Nation" of the title? What about their mysterious leader, Solomon Lane played by Sean Harris? Well, to put it simply, they are the best antagonists for the franchise so far. In fact, I believe them to be better than SPECTRE in the old Sean Connery Bond films. They are essentially a reboot of the IMF's original nemesis from the TV show (yes if you didn't know, Mission: Impossible is based on an old TV Show), and they are rebooted in the best possible way. Here, they are actually a legitimate threat as a completely evil incarnation of the IMF. Credit definitely has to go to Harris for his portrayal of Solomon Lane, who is believably more cunning and frightening than any villain in the Mission: Impossible franchise. The only downside I can come up with for him, as well as the whole movie, was wishing Lane was in the movie more, but again the amount of time he was present was utilized perfectly.

Final Thoughts

If you haven't figured it out yet, I really loved this movie. LOVE IT! And the more I think about it, the more I like it. And if you happen to be a fan of the original 60s TV Show, and have gotten bitter because the movies are nothing like the show, then this is the movie you've been waiting for because it finally has the elements of the TV show the original fans loved. Mainly the mind game aspect that is the real conflict between Hunt and Lane. There are callbacks to previous films as well as a complete reinvigoration of what a blockbuster should be. I'm hoping for the success of this movie, because it proves that you don't need Superheroes to make a good blockbuster anymore. Furious 7, Mad Max Fury Road and Jurassic World proved that. But this film proves it even more.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - The best Summer Blockbuster of the "Year of the Spy" so far

Justice League: Gods and Monsters - Review

2015-07-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

"Someone once asked if I wanted to save the world or to rule it. Today... it's going to be hard to tell the difference."

Those words should already tell you what kind of characters you're going to be dealing with.

The Plot

In an alternate universe created by DC Animation's Mastermind, Bruce Timm, comes a gripping story focused on an entirely new Justice League. In this grounded world, there is no Kal El/Clark Kent, Diana Prince, or Bruce Wayne. But there is still Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman. But they are completely different. Superman (Benjamin Bratt) is the son of General Zod raised by Mexican immigrants. Wonder Woman (Tamara Taylor) is the New God, Bekka, who chose Earth to be the home of her self imposed exile from Apokalips. And Batman (Michael C. Hall) is Kirk Langstrom, a scientist who accidentally turned himself into a vampire trying to cure his lymphoma. These incarnations of the Justice League are not like their original counterparts, and are willing to cross the line when the situation calls for it. So much so that when several scientists are brutally murdered, leaving evidence that points to the Justice League as the culprits, the world does not believe they are innocent. As the body count continues to rise, the brutal superheroes must find a way to clear their names before the world finally decides that it doesn't need them anymore.

Review

For a detailed backstory of the creation of this film, check out my review of the prequel web series right here: Justice League: Gods and Monsters - Season 1

This film is pretty much a return to form of the beloved 90s and early 2000s DC animation created by Bruce Timm. The film brings back a huge level of complexity that not many people would be expecting from a film like this. Especially when the selling point of the film is that this is a darker and grittier take on the DC Universe. And given the state of DC Fans hating the constant need of having their beloved properties injected with dark and gritty, it is no surprise that their initial reaction will be negative without even seeing the final product. Well I'm glad to report that this film is not dark and gritty. It is actually a mature take on the DC Universe with a slight edge. Yes there are dark themes in the film, and yes the violence is not toned down, but it is no different than the beloved animated series Timm has created in the past. If there is a difference, it is in the characters themselves.

Benjamin Bratt plays this incarnation of Superman named Hernan Guerra. This Superman is more akin to a soldier and has a rougher upbringing given that he was raised by Mexican immigrants. This adds a completely different layer to him as a Superman who grew up poor and in the lower class who literally rises up to become the success story of the American Dream. This upbringing makes his sense of justice far more complicated as he knows that justice sometimes needs a heavy hand but also must have limits. Bratt does an excellent job of balancing a man who clearly has a lot of anger, but tries to manage it in more positive ways. If there is one negative that I have to give about this movie involving his character, it is the outright acknowledgement that he is the son of General Zod. It is not a spoiler, as it is used in the promotions and first 5 minutes of the film, but this Superman had no idea General Zod was his father and when he learns this information for the first time it would've been a more powerful moment if the audience didn't know already.

Tamara Taylor plays this incarnation of Wonder Woman named Bekka. Her Wonder Woman is clearly a lot more aggressive and sexually active. The best way to describe it is think of her as a less overly flirty version of Catwoman but with multiple super powers. However the reason for her aggressive and overt sexual nature stems mainly from her origin, which is pretty much a Disney Princess story that horrifically turns into a Game of Thrones wedding. This automatically makes you understand why she's the way she is, and why she still wants to be a good person. Her backstory doesn't add much to the overall plot of the film as say Superman's or Batman's, but it is arguably the most hard hitting of the three. Tamara had a fine line to walk of having this cocky and sexually active Wonder Woman who hides her vulnerable side, and luckily she does an excellent job showing the complexity of Bekka.

Michael C. Hall plays this incarnation of Batman named Kirk Langstrom. It should come no surprise why the actor who played Dexter was hired to play this incarnation, primarily because he's a vampire who feeds off of criminals. Parallels aside, strangely enough, despite the very un-original take on the caped crusader, this iteration of Batman is probably the most relatable of the new heroes. Granted, Batman has always been touted as the most relatable of the DC heroes, but here we actually feel that he is someone we can be. Given that he is now Kirk Langstrom and not billionaire Bruce Wayne, we actually see him more as a normal person who is gifted that winds up gaining a horrible vocation. Hall's portrayal of Batman is mostly monotone, but when he does show emotion, the tone of his voice changes just enough for it to register that he does still have feelings despite being a monster.

But at the core of the movie is the murder mystery that is the central plot of the film. It is a highly commendable achievement for Bruce Timm and his writing partner Alan Burnett (also a DC animation alumni) to weave these entirely new backstories seamlessly into the central plot. However, that means that there wasn't enough room to truly delve deep into the mystery of who is killing the world's greatest scientists and are the Justice League innocent? I blame the 75 minute runtime for this problem, as the film only need 15 more extra minutes to develop the mystery further as well as the antagonist driving the mystery. It is still a compelling story, despite being a plot that has been used in Superhero stories over and over again. This is again thanks to Timm and Burnett's great execution with the writing, but hardcore DC fans will be able to solve the mystery in an instant. That still doesn't take away from this dark, edgy and FUN alternate universe.

If there is one thing that I have to really complain about, it is the fact that the animation is not really up to par for movie standards. As much as I love that they returned to Timm's classic animation style, I find it hard to believe that they didn't have enough time to make the animation smoother. It is a nice callback to the old 90s and early 2000s, but it is hard to deny that the animation could use a few more extra frames to really sell the action or even dramatic moments.

Final Thoughts

While it may not be the best thing Bruce Timm has ever done, it is definitely the best animated film Warner Bros. animation has produced in almost a decade. The animation and voice acting is a loving call back to a time when DC animation was considered king, and also shows that it is okay to think outside of the box when it comes to the DC Trinity. Small problems and pretty predictable story aside, this is probably the most relatable and fascinating iteration of Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman in a long time. If you have a love for alternate stories or have an open mind for change, this movie will definitely entertain and enlighten you. If you are incapable of accepting other interpretations of the characters you hold so close to your fanboy/girl heart...then don't bother because you are absolutely going to hate this no matter how good it is. I have an open mind, and this is the Justice League I want in my life. I now have Season 2 and hopefully a sequel to this film to look forward to in the future.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - Despite being predictable, it is a great and welcoming return for Bruce Timm

Ant-Man - Review

2015-07-21T20:24:00.000-05:00

"Baskin Robins always knows."

Great use of product placement there. No one is going to forget that anytime soon. Including me.

The Plot

After being released from prison, burglar Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) decides to go straight for the sake of his daughter. But when he is unable to keep an honest job due to his crooked past, as well as pressure from his ex-wife (Judy Greer) and her fiancé (Bobby Cannavale) for child support, Lang has no choice but to go back to his old habits to make ends meet. Re-teaming with his friend, Luis (Michael Peña), and his new crew (Tip "T.I." Harris and David Dastmalchian), Lang plots to rob a vault thanks to an anonymous tip through the grape vine. What he discovers in the vault changes his life forever, as he discovers he has been recruited by Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to become the second Ant-Man to stop Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) from replicating the Pym Partical shrinking power. With Pym's daughter (Evangeline Lily) and several species of Ants as his allies, Lang must conduct the biggest, yet also smallest, heist job of his life.

Review

The film community is well aware of the production woes of this film. However most of the people who will watch this movie won't care. So I won't bother to write a long extensive lamentation of having one of my favorite directors, Edgar Wright, attached to this project then leaving it due to a disagreement with Marvel. Because again, the general audience doesn't care. I care, but they don't. So what does the general audience care about? Is the movie good? That's what they care about. And frankly, good is the word I'd use to describe it.

Ant-Man is a pretty good cliched Marvel film which has the major benefit of feeling more like a small independent film that happens to have superheroes in it. Which is probably the most welcoming aspect about this film within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While indeed the crisis could cause massive amounts of destruction upon the world, it didn't feel like the world was going to end. Which is usually how Marvel movies are. Villain threatens the world, hero saves the world. And by world that usually means the planet. But in this film, the world is a small one. Very small. Which is much more fitting given what the title character's power is. Shrinking.

In a sense, the film is a Marvel film with all the now famous Marvel tropes shrunk to a smaller scale. The characters are not larger than life but rather very small compared to the rest of the world. They are businessmen, cops and thieves. Individuals who you see or probably know about in everyday life. Yeah, Michael Douglas is a tech genius, but he's no Tony Stark. Which works really well in having everyone be pretty much everyday people who happen to be battling over something very powerful. But because they are like everyday people, that doesn't make them memorable people.

Paul Rudd does a great job playing this overly cliche role of a good thief who doesn't like killing, only stealing, for the sake of his daughter. His comedy is not exactly my cup of tea, but he was definitely a passable lead for what role he is given. I'm sure he'll probably blow me away in another outing, but for now he was just okay. Evangeline Lily was a great supporting character, though her description is pretty much stated by a character in the film as "mean pretty lady." Throw in a dash of "father and daughter issues" and you have her character, Hope Van Dyne, in a nutshell. She was good. Then there is Corey Stoll as the villainous Darren Cross. Despite having an added layer of doing evil things in order to please someone, that still doesn't stop him from being a standard Marvel villain. However, there are some standouts.

Michael Douglas as Hank Pym is probably one of my favorite performances in a Marvel film to date. Pym is known in the comics for being a heavily complex character, and occasional wife beater, and while the wife beater part is gone he is still pretty complex thanks to Douglas. He was the most fascinating character in the film, and makes me crave for an Ant-Man prequel about his days as the original Ant-Man side by side with his wife who was The Wasp. But he isn't the only Michael in the film who was a standout. Michael Peña, who plays Luis, is probably the big highlight of the movie. Him and his crew played by rapper T.I. and David Dastmalchian of The Dark Knight fame were responsible for most of my favorite parts of the film. Especially Peña's character, as he reminds you so much about that one friend you know, making him the most likable character in the movie. I wish there was more of them, but in the end they were utilized very effectively.

But what about the action? Well....there isn't a lot of action. This movie is a heist film, so the action is more dedicated to characters, and ants, breaking into things rather than battling other characters. But that doesn't prevent it from being boring. The shrinking action is breathtaking with smart uses of the power put on full display. Particularly one scene involving a certain Avenger that will make up for the long absences of action. They are used at the appropriate times, but they are not the focus of the movie. But when they happen, they are brilliant.

Final Thoughts

I was hoping that this would be a movie that I would love after the disappointing Avengers: Age of Ultron. While it does make for a good film, I don't think it is a great film. Or a movie that I would actually go about to buy. Mainly because I believe I set myself up to have expectations lowered. But as reviews started piling it calling it the best superhero movie to happen in a long time, my low expectations became sky high. I wish I could've kept my low expectations, because this sudden burst of high expectations made this movie enjoyable for me, but not to the level that everyone else feels. An admirable small superhero movie within a larger superhero movie universe. Good job, but its just not for me.

SCORE: 7/10 - Entertaining, but ultimately don't think I'll care about it after

INDEPENDENCE DAY - Review

2015-07-04T18:51:00.000-05:00

"WE WILL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT! WE WILL NOT VANISH WITHOUT A FIGHT! WE'RE GOING TO LIVE ON! WE'RE GOING TO SURVIVE! TODAY WE CELEBRATE OUR INDEPENDENCE DAY!"

God Bless Americ....I mean the world.....Yeah, the world. Cause the movie President says its no longer exclusive to America. So the world.

The Plot

On July 2nd, gigantic spaceships surround the world, hovering over major cities. When a cable company analyst (Jeff Goldblum) discovers a hidden signal from their satellites that acts as a countdown of destruction, he contacts his estranged wife (Margaret Colin) who is aide to the President of the United States (Bill Pullman) to enact a large scale evacuation. But it is too late, as the aliens destroy every major city around the world. On July 3rd, the surviving military forces, including a cocky air pilot (Will Smith), launch an assault on the ships. Only to discover their weapons have no effect. But on July 4th, the aliens move to make their final strike on the planet, as humanity makes one last desperate attack on their invaders.

Review

What better way to celebrate the Fourth of July than watching the most patriotic pro-American movie ever made.... but ironically directed by a German Director. Roland Emmerich is pretty much the disaster movie king, a title he earned by creating this very film. Jaws may have been the first blockbuster film, but when people look back at what defines a Summer Blockbuster, it will be this one.

Independence Day is a type of High Concept Summer Blockbuster film that we don't get much in the post Superhero Age of Cinema. A film that pretty much solidified to studio execs what a blockbuster film should be like. Epic storytelling, epic visual effects, massive amounts of action, and relatable yet extremely heroic everyday characters who don't have to be developed too much. It may not have been the first of its kind, but it is heavily considered the best of its kind. Because this movie was the very definition of what cinematic spectacle is suppose to be. From the dogfights to the epic wide shots of spaceships the size of cities hovering over a famous landmark, this film has everything that is now attributed with popcorn cinema. And I pretty much love it.

The film was created in 1996, post-Jurassic Park, which means that CGI still hasn't been refined to its fullest potential yet. This is where we see a true blending between our modern visual effects and the old school practical effects that have been around for decades prior. The inferno destruction of the major American cities due to the alien blast, still holds up after so many years. Mainly because the destruction of cities was done with miniatures that were built painstakingly detailed, only to be blown with real explosions. This gives it a very tangible feeling that has gotten lost with CGI films, mainly because no matter how much watching a CGI city getting destroyed may be more accurate, there is still that realm of knowing what you see isn't real. But in here, most of what is seen on the screen is completely real. Yes, there is CGI in the movie. But to create the appearance of massive spaceship and jet fighter armadas in the background, while real miniature models fly in the foreground. It is no wonder why this film won the Oscar for best visual effects, because no matter how old this movie gets I can guarantee it will still hold up.

But that's enough praise for the spectacle and the special effects. Because one of the weakest points of the film is its characters. Yes, Jeff Goldblum, Will Smith, Bill Pullman and Randy Quaid are pretty much the only memorable aspects of the film. And an argument can be made that Brent Spiner, the guy who plays the wacky Area 51 scientist, is also the other most memorable actor in the film. However the fact that I can't remember the names of their characters or any other characters for the matter, kind of tells you how important they really are. Because the film is pretty much all story, with the characters acting as drivers for the plot rather than participants. There is some character arc developments for Goldblum's and Quaid's characters, but the changes are so small that it doesn't really seem like so much of one. Everyone in the film is pretty much a capable and heroic version of what we hope we can be if we were ever put in that situation. And given that the only true bad guys of the film are aliens, performed by animatronic puppets, it is pretty clear that the movie is not going for the type of really in depth characters we demand so much in modern blockbusters. This is a film that brings back the simple notion that the first Star Wars movie was about: Good versus Evil. Simple and clean.

The only thing that would really date this movie though is that it is pretty obvious that it is a product of the 90s. Blockbuster films of that era are known to have an occasional over the top character as well as tech that would make youngsters of this generation cringe. In an age when Superhero movies offer good guys and bad guys with a lot depth, this one is just pure fun good versus evil shoot em up.

Final Thoughts

Overall, this movie is a product of a forgotten age of high concept blockbuster cinema. In the Superhero Age of Cinema, there are rarely any original high concept films like this anymore. The closest that we have to something like this is Pacific Rim, which pretty much has a similar story except we have giant robots to fight with against giant monsters, and San Andreas, a very dumb movie that is high popcorn entertainment. I wish we can return to a time when blockbusters were something worth seeing, and not sequels or reboots of existing properties. Which ironically enough is happening with this film in the form of Independence Day: Resurgence. Why can't we have more new ideas? Why? Oh well. Watch this movie to have fun, and that's all.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - AMERICA! F#CK YEAH!

Terminator Genisys - Review

2015-07-03T21:32:00.000-05:00

"I'll be back."

We won't be waiting.

The Plot

In the future, humanity has achieved victory over the machines of Skynet thanks to the leadership of John Connor (Jason Clarke). But Skynet has put to use their secret weapon, a tactical time machine to send a Terminator back in time to kill John's mother, Sarah Connor (Emilia Clarke), which would erase John from existence. To stop the machine, John sends back his most trusted soldier, Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back in time to save his mother. But when Kyle arrives in the past, he discovers Sarah is already battle trained and prepared for his arrival, as well as under the watchful eye of her own Terminator Guardian, Pops (Arnold Schwarzenegger). With the timeline drastically changed, Kyle must join forces with this new alternate timeline Sarah and her Guardian in order to combat an unexpected new threat to the past and future.

Review

Terminator Genisys was meant to be a rebirth of the very forced franchise churned out of the first two Terminator films. The method the writers of the film chose to go about this? Time Travel. It has become a device that is known for fixing problems in sci-fi movies that need a reboot. The two biggest, and probably only examples, are J.J. Abrams' Star Trek and X-Men: Days of Future Past. If I had to compare Genisys to one of those films, I'd say it is more in line with Days of Future Past. Both films use time travel as a plot device to wipe away the previous continuity in order to establish a new one by directly referencing events that occurred in previous films. However, Days of Future Past did this very seldom and was really focused on telling a story that requires time travel for an unseen point in time in the film's series chronology. While Genisys directly takes you back to the first Terminator film and does shot for shot scenes from it as well. This is where the biggest problem lies.

Genisys possesses a story that cannot stand on its own. A reboot's job is to completely start fresh, referencing the old, while making way for the new. This film however, almost requires you to have seen the first two Terminator films in order to fully understand what is truly at stake. Yes, there is enough to make it feel like a stand alone, but the first hour of the film just required too much homework of watching the previous films in order to fully understand it. Ironically though, the first half is the best part, which is a testament to how good the first two Terminator films are. It is the second half of the film where things really fall apart, because in the second half the heroes (the human ones) time travel to 2017 in order to combat a new threat. And this threat is a very familiar face.

If you've seen the trailer, then you know who the threat is. If you haven't, then I won't say here. It is a shame really, because the new threat the writers devised for this film is actually an intriguing premise that gets poorly handled. The very existence of this new threat, along with the new old threat that creates the new threat, is at the center of what is wrong with the movie. The story gets too convoluted in trying to explain this new threat, as well as tries too hard to bring the characters to our current present day for future installments. This was all really about getting the characters where the studio wants them to be so that they can do whatever they want with them without feeling like they're disrespecting the franchise. Unfortunately all this convoluted mess feels more as a disrespect rather than a respect. It just doesn't work and doesn't make that much sense if you were to think about it.

But how are the performances? They're below passable. The leads that is. Emilia Clarke is an incredible actress in Game of Thrones, and given that the director of this film is from Game of Thrones one would expect a great performance. Unfortunately, she is far from being the successor to Linda Hamilton. Plus, you'd think at this point since she's raised by a Terminator she'd be a lot more muscular like Hamilton in the second film. But here she looks like a normal girl, who can handle guns, but not the beast of a woman Sarah Connor is usually associated with. Then there's Jai Courtney. I'm pretty sure the guy is really nice, or has a good agent, because he's pretty much in every major Hollywood film. But he's just so wooden, that he'd be more perfect as a Terminator rather than the human hero.

The three big standout performances though come from Schwarzenegger, Jason Clarke, and J.K. Simmons. The three of them are easily the best parts of the movie. Schwarzenegger stills shows he's old but not obsolete as the Guardian Terminator, Jason Clarke proves to be an admirable and heroic John Connor, while Simmons plays a his role, that I won't specify, with such memorability, you'd wish he was in the film more. Their performances are the only saving grace of the film. Which is saying a lot since most of the action scenes in the movie are not bad, but not impressive either. Which doesn't help making this convoluted plot anymore watchable.

Final Thoughts

Despite being convoluted and confusing, while also blatantly setting up for sequels, the film itself is passable entertainment. But by passable, it actually suffers from being extremely boring. Which is a word that should never be associated with The Terminator. It is a forgettable film with competent direction, but a terrible misguided story that doesn't give its leads enough to work with. You won't remember watching this film, as I'm having a hard time remembering anything in the movie after seeing it a few hours ago from writing this. So in the end, it can be passable, but it is not memorable.

SCORE: 4/10 - The four is for Emilia Clarke, Schwarzenegger, Jason Clarke and J.K. Simmons

Jurassic World - Review

2015-06-15T22:45:00.000-05:00

Welcome, to a place where nothing can possibly go wrong...

Right? Right? I mean seriously...right?

The Plot

After nearly two decades, John Hammond's dream of creating a fully functional theme park with living dinosaurs has come true in the form of JURASSIC WORLD. But over the years since its opening, the public is no longer impressed with seeing a dinosaur anymore. That is when corporate pressures the current Operations Manager of the park, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), to come up with new attractions to get attendance spiking again. The solution: creating a new, genetically modified dinosaur that is bigger, scarier, and with more teeth. This doesn't sit well with the park's raptor handler, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), who believes the creation and treatment of the new dinosaur could lead to disaster. And it proves right when the monstrosity outsmarts its handlers by escaping and killing everything in its path. Now Claire must team up with Owen to not only stop the monster she created, but to save her two nephews (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkons) who are visiting the Park.

Review

I know that plot synopsis seems long, but that is not even close to covering the other plots that are happening in this movie. And there are many, but the one I stated above is the clear plot. Which automatically brings me to my first negative. There are too many plots going on in the film when the focus should've been concentrated on the premise that was promoted in the movie. Now, don't get me wrong, what was promised is pretty prominent, but it gets weighted down by so many unnecessary plot points.

Don't take this the wrong way. I highly enjoy the film. But I find it necessary to disclose what bugged me in the first place. And the multiple plot problem stems mostly from the lack of characterization and focus on a central character for the audience to latch on to. This problem starts mainly because it opens the film with the two kids played by Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkons. Both of them are phenomenal actors... in other movies. Here they are passable child actors and set up to be the audience's point of view as visitors of the theme park. The problem is there isn't enough development for either of them to make us want to remain invested in their side of the story. Robinson's character comes off as too much of a bully and unfaithful to his girlfriend back home. Simpkons is just a child with no real personality other than a fascination with dinosaurs. Had they been handled like the kids in the first Jurassic Park movie as another obstacle for the clear main character to handle, then I would've been fine with their presence, despite it being a lazy throwback. But we didn't get a lazy throwback, just lazy character writing.

It takes a while before the movie really locks on to the film's true main characters, Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire Dearing and Chris Pratt's Owen Grady. The movie would've been a lot stronger had it began with both of them from the start, rather than the children who gradually become an after thought in the film. While Owen may be the most fascinating character, due to his ability to train raptors, and Claire has the clear character arc of the story, they are both still just as poorly underwritten as the other characters in the film. Pratt's Owen is the badass, grizzled hunk and Howard's Claire is a workaholic who has to learn to loosen up. Characters that literally could've been played by anybody, but we're just thankful that it's these two who are casted. If anything, Pratt's turn as Owen shows the world that he's very capable of becoming Indiana Jones, if a film is to ever be made. And Howard shows incredible endurance by going through this whole ordeal in High Heels. Again, these are stock characters who are more interesting than the others, but the talent casted as them seems wasted.

Stock characters is going to come up a lot if I keep going about the rest of the cast, so I'll just sum it up here. Everyone is a stock cliche character in this film. Irrfan Khan plays an eccentric billionaire. Jake Johnson plays a nerdy computer guy. Omar Sy plays the foreign sidekick. And Vincent D'Onofrio plays the evil military commander. All of them, including the main ones, are stock characters who could've been spun into far more interesting ways, but they aren't. Which is surprising because director Colin Trevorrow and writer Derek Connolly have shown they are fully capable of crafting interesting characters in their debut film, Safety Not Guaranteed, but for some reason here they are completely lacking. But where they both do excel at, is delivering the spectacle the audience desires.

Yes it takes nearly 30 minutes before a fully fledged dinosaur is seen. But once they are showcased, the movie suddenly gets a thousand times better. Nothing can beat the sheer spectacle of seeing these majestic creatures on the big screen once again. But even as the movie states, the audience wants more. And what Trevorrow and Connolly devise is definitely a worthy villain for this outing of the franchise. That villain being the Indominus Rex, a monstrosity spliced together from several animals, not just dinosaurs, in order to be exploited for the audience's enjoyment. Though the only audience who would enjoy such a thing is us, the viewers, not the park attendees who have to run for their lives from this monster. And in order to stop this monster, the Park managers require the utilization of a controversial story device that has been criticized by fans.

The training of the raptors has been constantly complained about by fans as a terrible way of destroying one of the best villains in the series. However those complaints prove to be ill informed, as it is pretty clear in the film that these things can't be tamed and are still extremely dangerous. They may have a relationship with Pratt's Owen, but it is only with Owen. They are not docile, they are still animals and will follow whoever is the alpha, which Owen has worked hard on becoming their alpha. What is even more surprising is that the relationship between Owen and his raptors, particularly the one named Blue, is probably the most compelling relationship in the movie. And come on, watching Chris Pratt hunt the Indominus Rex with his raptor pack is awesome! As is the rest of the dinosaur action in the movie, which gets pretty graphic more so than I thought it would. Particularly regarding Katie McGrath's character and her encounter with several dinosaurs standing out as the one that will stick in people's memories. Trust me, if you don't know who she is, you will remember her.

Final Thoughts

While that may sound like a mostly negative review, I really mean it by saying once the dinosaurs enter the picture, the movie drastically improves into a spectacle. Is it a worthy follow up in the Jurassic Park legacy? I believe it is. Does it surpass the first movie? No it doesn't. Does it surpass the second one? For me personally, no it doesn't. Does it surpass the third one? Yes it does by the power of a thousand. The dinosaur action is spectacular, the monstrous new villain is terrifying, and there is enough likability in the two leads to make this a completely watchable experience. The movie delivers what it promises: a damn good time in the theater!

SCORE: 7.5/10 - Weak start, weak characters, extraordinary spectacle, terrifying villain

Justice League: Gods And Monsters Chronicles - Season 1 Review

2015-06-13T17:07:00.000-05:00

A New World Order in an Alternate DC Universe

This year (2015) marks the return of an animation titan, Bruce Timm. A man responsible for creating the best animated DC Superhero Cartoons as well as being one of the creators behind the now iconic supervillainess, Harley Quinn. He has stepped away from DC animation for a while as a creative force, instead opting to be just a producer. But now, the time has come for his return. And it is a a return not many people were excepting.

Timm has decided to create an entirely original Justice League universe that is more edgy and gritty. Which translates to most people as, "Dark and Gritty." This bemoans DC fans as they are apparently tired of this trend, especially with how much the internet fan community already hates the darker DC Cinematic films, when as of right now there is only one to really complain about.

But Timm is no fool. He refuses to use the term Dark for this new universe he's creating. But he definitely wants it to be edgy, yet still exciting to watch. The result is JUSTICE LEAGUE: Gods and Monsters which debuts direct to DVD later in the year. But luckily he has partnered with Machinima to showcase three short 5-6 minute episodes that give audiences a taste of how different this world will be. And thus JUSTICE LEAGUE: Gods and Monsters CHRONICLES was born. You can watch these three short episodes for free on youtube through Machinima's channel. And these three episodes are meant to introduce us to the Trinity of this Universe: Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman.

Episode 1 - Twisted

The first episode of this web series introduces this universe's Batman. Here he is Kirk Langstrom, a character that most DC Comics fans know as Man-Bat in the main universe. This version of him is a Vampire, which automatically gives you an idea of how different he is from Bruce Wayne's Batman. But he is not the only one who shows up in this episode. Fan favorite villainess, Harley Quinn, is the primary antagonist of this short. But given that this episode's mission is to let you know that this is a much edgier world, Harley's actions definitely conveys it the most. Because here she is amplified to pure psychopathic serial killer. As the episode demonstrates, the gloves are off and this is definitely not a children's show. The tone is definitely fit for a Batman episode, but it is the horrific things that Harley does that truly gives new meaning to the term, gritty. It does however come off as a little bit trying too hard to outdo the notion of "dark and gritty" by going to the extreme. But that is only a minor problem, as the episode is a nice exercise of how effective short narrative is, as well as having little dialogue. The actions and atmosphere tell the story in a hugely effective way, and lets people know this is going to be their violent new Batman.

SCORE: 8/10 - A great introduction to the new Batman, that does go overboard a bit

Episode 2 - Bomb

The second episode of this web series introduces this universe's Superman. This one is the son of General Zod, whom DC Comics fans will know as one of the archenemies of Superman in the main universe. Unlike his main universe counterpart, this Superman is raised by Mexican Immigrants and had a rougher upbringing. But none of that is explored here, as the episode deals with a city being completely torn apart by Brainiac. This isn't the alien computer from the main universe, but rather an entity created by the government to keep Superman in check. Unfortunately this entity has lost control of his powers and incapable of stopping the destruction he causes. And the confrontation between this world's Superman and Brainiac is what makes it the best episode of three. Here, in this not so subtle reference to Akira, we see how much this Superman is similar to the primary one. He definitely believes in doing the morally right thing first, as it is Superman's nature to always find another way. But then that's where the similarities end due to him being far more pragmatic with his actions. It is definitely a commentary about the controversial ending in Man of Steel, but this takes it to a whole lot darker territory. Tone wise it isn't as dark as the Batman episode, but the situation that it builds up to is both dark and truly... heart wrenching. This is a Superman who feels like a soldier who has to live with the decisions he makes while at the same time continue to perform what he believes is right. This adds a complexity to the Superman character that hasn't really been explored in the main universe, and it probably never will.

SCORE: 9.5/10 - A perfect introduction to the new Superman that is both dark and poignant

Episode 3 - Big

The third episode of this web series introduces this universe's Wonder Woman. Here, she is Bekka, who some DC comics fans will know as the wife of Orion and a New God. Unlike this universe's Batman and Superman who have direct ties to villains of their main universe counterparts, Bekka is not connected to the main universe's Wonder Woman in any shape or form. This makes her completely special and unique among the trinity, as she feels like a completely new character rather than a twist on an existing one. Granted her character in the main universe is pretty obscure, but here is her chance to shine as the most powerful woman in this universe. And she is powerful. However, as the two previous episodes demonstrate how dark this world can be, this episode was actually... fun. It is a complete homage to classic James Bond films, with this world's Steve Trevor as Bond but with a twist. It is a complete gender reversal by having the Bond Girl of this scenario, Wonder Woman, outclassing the James Bond of this scenario, Steve Trevor. It was completely meant to showcase that this Wonder Woman is boisterously cocky as well as sexually aggressive. She says what she wants and gets what she wants, whether you like it or not. And has the power to back it up. This comes off as a little jarring seeing as the previous two episodes dealt with dark themes, whereas this one really deals with sexuality. She is definitely proud of her barely covered assets and is hungry to have sex surrounded by a sea of corpses she was responsible for. That's pretty much where we really see what Timm meant by wanting to be edgy and not dark. Because this is edgy, having a cocky and extremely horny Wonder Woman, which may rub some fans the wrong way, but it does make her a hell of a lot more interesting. But in the end, the episode feels like a letdown because of how the previous two were handled.

SCORE: 7.5/10 - An entertaining introduction to a sexually charged Wonder Woman

Overall Impressions

This has been a great introduction to Bruce Timm's new edgy and gritty DC Universe. It offers us glimpses into not only the powers of the new characters but also their personalities. There really isn't much to nitpick about theses shorts as they are timed perfectly to deliver the goods. Although I would like to argue that the Wonder Woman episode probably should've been the second episode as chronologically her story takes place before Superman's. I am very much looking forward to the feature length film, as well as Season 2 next year. I'm loving these characters so far, and I can only hope that they mesh well together as the Justice League.

SPY (2015) - Movie Review

2015-06-05T20:18:00.001-05:00

The Second Blockbuster Spy movie of 2015

It definitely is the YEAR OF THE SPY!

The Plot

When the CIA's top agent, Bradley Fine (Jude Law), is killed by an arms dealer heiress, Rayna (Rose Byrne), who not only has possession of a nuclear bomb but the identities of every field agent in the CIA. The only option is to send in Fine's handler, Susan (Melissa McCarthy), to get close to Rayna and discover the location of the Nuke before it falls into the wrong hands. Believing that a desk agent is unfit to fulfill the mission, field agent Ford (Jason Statham) goes rogue in an attempt to complete the mission and prove Susan is not meant for the field. But there is more to this special agent than initially perceived.

Review

Paul Feig is probably the only director who knows how to craft a proper Melissa McCarthy vehicle. Because while McCarthy has made a name for herself in Feig's breakout film, Bridesmaids, and his follow up, The Heat co-starring Sandra Bullock, she has not made a great Hollywood film that isn't directed by Feig. Which is a shame because Identity Thief and Tammy threatened to cause the public to get tired of her "schtick." But luckily this film, and perhaps a small little indie film called St. Vincent, allows the audience to realize she's not a one note character.

McCarthy shines in this movie in a role that is completely different to what she's done in her previous big Hollywood films, while at the same time still maintaining the humor that she is known for. Here she plays Susan Cooper, a CIA Analyst who is desk bound and is merely the voice in Agent Fine's ear, guiding him on where he needs to go and warning him of impending danger. Fascinatingly enough, she actually joined the CIA to be a field agent but was talked into taking the desk job. This small bit of information makes her character a completely different animal to most Spy Parody movies. Meaning she is actually a competent agent. She's not a bumbling bafoon who gets lucky, she's actually capable of doing the job. But having a lack of experience does show she has a weak stomach for violence, and there is plenty. But what really makes doing her job difficult, and hilarious, is Statham's rogue Agent Ford.

Statham is definitely the true standout of this movie as he is pretty much playing a complete parody of himself. Statham's Ford is pretty much an over confident and condescending take on every character Statham has ever played in an action movie, spun to sound like his profile of being the perfect spy. His long speeches of how he is capable of doing anything, and I mean anything, because he is such a badass will definitely bring laughs to an audience who recognizes that he's pretty much attacking his action hero image in the most hilarious way possible. It is quite refreshing seeing the more capable agent being the bumbling fool this time around instead of the protagonist. This offers a completely fresh take on the spy parody as it makes us like McCarthy's Agent Cooper rather than wishing the movie was about Statham's Agent Ford. I'm looking at you Get Smart.

But while McCarthy and Statham are definitely the heavy hitters of the movie, they would be nothing without their supporting cast of agents and terrorists. Miranda Hart plays Nancy, the voice in Agent Cooper's ear and her best friend prior to becoming a field agent. She offers great support to McCarthy's Cooper, however it feels like she's barely in the film despite being sprinkled carefully throughout it. Peter Serafinowicz, most famously known as the voice of Darth Maul and Denarian Saal in Guardians of the Galaxy, plays Agent Aldo, Cooper's Italian contact who provides some of the best laughs in the film due to his constant need of physical contact with Cooper. Then there's Agent Cooper's nemesis, Rayna played by Rose Byrne, another actress who has skyrocketed in the comedy circuit thanks to Bridesmaids. Here Byrne plays the very definition of a Spoiled Bitch, which works great as both a satire on the rich and powerful as well as the stereotypical Bond villains. Bobby Cannavale also makes an appearance as a possible buyer for the Nuke, but that's all you really need to know.

What is probably the most shocking aspect about this film is how violent and action oriented it is. Now, this is nowhere near as violent as the first blockbuster spy film of the year, Kingsman, but while that movie was awesomely violent, this film is shockingly violent. This is mainly because the film is sold mostly as a comedy rather than an action film, which will catch people completely off guard when blood and gore enter the picture. Though I can't help but feeling this is director Feig's way of saying, "Hey! I can do other stuff besides comedy," and it shows brilliantly. The fights and action sequences in the film are well choreographed without falling too far into the trap of being parodies of Spy Movie action. They feel just right and not too over the top, making it very believable for McCarthy's Cooper to be a capable fighter in the film.

Final Thoughts

This is definitely the best film Melissa McCarthy has starred in so far. It is both funny and a smart way of subverting not just the spy genre but the spy spoof genre as well by not falling into familiar territory too much. Though it still is just as predictable as Kingsman, both films benefit by feeling fresh enough to make one forget just how worn out and predictable the spy genre is. With an all-star cast and a great use of humor at times that merit it, Spy is living proof that McCarthy can still make us laugh and that Paul Feig is the right person to helm the all female Ghostbusters reboot.

SCORE: 8/10 - A well executed subversion of the spy spoof genre, despite being cliche

San Andreas - Review

2015-05-29T16:13:00.000-05:00

The best 90s disaster movie...that isn't from the 90s

And for the most part, that is completely okay. Because if it was, it would've been directed by Roland Emmerich. Who is a director of many of my guilty pleasure movies. But I'm so glad he didn't direct this.

The Plot

Rescue Helicopter Pilot Chief Ray Gaines (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) and his estranged wife, Emma (Carla Gugino), must team up to rescue their daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario) who is trapped in San Francisco as a catastrophic earthquake tears California apart. Meanwhile, a CalTech Seismologist (Paul Giamati) tries to warn the world that the worst is yet to come.

Review

That synopsis is pretty much the entire plot of the movie in a nutshell. And if you've seen the trailers and TV spots for this movie, then you know very well what you're getting in for. Because if you expect this to be a game changer in the disaster movie genre, then you're sadly mistaken. What you should be hoping for is does this movie deliver what it promises. And the answer is Yes, it does.

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has re-teamed with his Journey 2 director, Brad Peyton, to deliver a new big budget hollywood disaster movie. And with all out honesty, I truly believe that the two prominent reasons why this movie is so entertaining, despite being a paint by the numbers disaster film, is because of these two. Peyton knows what type of film he's making. And he has an entire catalogue of disaster films to draw from, whether it be from the school of Roland Emmerich or Irwin Allen, the original disaster king. His film doesn't really differ too much from any of them, but his approach of dominantly showcasing the spectacle and the terror from the human perspective instead of the epic wide shot is what makes it so compelling. This unique approach, combined with the charisma of The Rock definitely elevates this film above its peers. It may not be a high elevation, but it is enough to give it more intensity.

Now. All that credit can't just go to The Rock Johnson, it also has to go to the rest of the cast. Carla Gugino is once again playing Johnson's wife/ex-wife/love interest for the third time and still continues to be a heavily underrated actress. She's very real and believable in her role, despite how limited it is. Which will be a recurring theme when talking about the rest of the cast. Believable despite being limited. Alexandra Daddario is believable as the heavily competent and capable daughter of a rescue pilot. Though some of her scenes of being terrified may not translate well due to her facial expressions, but the vocal and emotion she's projecting sells it. She is joined by Ben and Ollie Taylor, played by Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson, who save her on occasion but are mostly saved by her instincts and competency. Both of them were fine additions and helped showcase some of the more emotional sides of the story from within the terror.

But the one standout performance in the film has to go to Paul Giamatti as Lawrence, a CalTech Seismologist. While he is mainly there for exposition, it comes off as easy to understand for whatever rules the film has set about how its science works. This should really come as no surprise given that Giamatti is an Oscar caliber actor, and he gives in to the role that is essentially Mr. Exposition. But again, repeating my sentiment, believable despite being limited.

After all, one does not go to these movies for a compelling story and well drawn out characters. You go for the spectacle. And to see the Rock battle an earthquake. And this movie completely delivers on that promise. As the spectacle of the movie just keeps ratcheting into more and more danger at ludicrous levels, Peyton doesn't lose sight of how horrific this event would actually be. Mad props to him and the effects team for creating a film that is both awe-inspiring and terrifying.

But really, it is a Dwayne Johnson movie after all. And while his performance is not at the same level as Giamatti, it is clear that this is definitely one of his best performances of his career yet. His chemistry with Gugino is evident, and how he handles the emotional scenes are extremely powerful for his standards. He is slowly showing the world that he's not just the charismatic action guy, he is also a good actor. And I'm pretty sure eventually, he'll become an incredible one. He's almost there, and this film shows he can get there.

Final Thoughts

I keep having to re-iterate this. It's a disaster movie. You know what happens in disaster movies. If you don't like disaster movies, then don't watch this movie. Because nothing I say will change that opinion. However if you're willing to have an open mind and turn off logic for a while to enjoy a competently made disaster movie starring one of the most charismatic actors in Hollywood. Then yes, go see this movie. It is definitely a fun and terrifying time at the theater that won't disappoint if you know exactly what you're getting in for and expecting nothing more. And who knows, maybe you'll be surprised by some of the things the team behind this film has done. Because I was sure as hell impressed by it, despite being what it is.

SCORE: 7/10 - I was genuinely entertained and moved by this film, because I know what it is and expect nothing more from it

Tomorrowland - Review

2015-05-24T18:38:00.000-05:00

"You wanted to see Tomorrowland..."

Well.....here it comes....eventually...maybe....now.....or.....now....orrrrr.......NOW......okay now...

The Plot

When young dreamer and genius Casey Newton (Britt Robertson) gets hold of a mysterious pin, she glimpses a world beyond her imagination. A world where nothing is impossible. But when the visions of this world end, she seeks answers that leads her to cross paths with a mysterious girl, Athena (Raffey Cassidy). It is from there that the duo must join forces and find a man who came from that wondrous place. That man is Frank Walker (George Clooney), and he can take them to... Tomorrowland.

Review

The name Brad Bird is completely unknown to the general movie going audience. But to the filmmaking world, the name means perfection. A name that has The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol under his resume. Movies that are universally acclaimed and beloved by millions. He is also responsible for some of the greatest Simpsons episodes in the late 80s and early 90s. So it should come no surprise that expectations for his next film are extraordinarily high amongst the film lover community. But alas, not everyone is perfect. And this film shows even Brad Bird is not perfection.

Tomorrowland has a beautiful message. Optimism can lead to a brighter future and imagination can create wonderful things. It is a nice counter to the extreme amount of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic media that the audience is subjected to recently. We embrace the apocalyptic world as the future we are going to have instead of the bright future that people in the 60s used to dream of. And while that message is beautiful and very much needed for this generation, it comes off extremely heavy handed. There is not subtlety about this message, which comes as a surprise to many as Bird's films usually exhibits great subtext. Unfortunately, subtlety isn't the only thing missing from this film, but the weaving of a cohesive story also appears to be gone.

This seems to stem mostly from clashing ideologies between Bird and his co-writer of the film, Damon Lindelof. Whereas Bird is someone who loves to exhibit wonder, Lindelof is someone who likes to exhibit mystery. A habit that can be drawn from his involvement with the show LOST which required nothing but mystery and intrigue. It is where these two writing styles clash heavily, so much so that it is pretty obvious that two completely different movies could've been made. There is Bird's movie, which revolves around Clooney's character Frank as a child (Thomas Robinson) being accepted into Tomorrowland and his relationship with Athena. Then there is Lindelof's movie, which revolves around Casey discovering Tomorrowland exists and seeking out Frank in order to go there. It was a valiant effort by Bird to try and combine both of these films into one, but it just doesn't work. Which is a shame because the acting talent involved is wonderful.

Britt Robertson is a name that will probably be popping up a lot in the future. Her performance as Casey Newton is very much about a teenager who hasn't lost sight of what wonder is suppose to be. And it is refreshing seeing a teenage character who thinks about saving the wonders of science instead of succumbing to the problems of the world. It helps that she is so magnetic, as it takes a while before the film reaches George Clooney as the old and bitter Frank Walker. He is definitely embracing his age, as well as showcasing someone who has lost that spark of wonder, yet still holds on to a little bit of hope. But probably the biggest revelation of the film is Raffey Cassidy as Athena, who is the very definition of wonder and hope. She will be the one people remember from this film, for several reasons. Though one may be the wrong one, but that is a fault to the Lindelof side of the film's story.

What does come off as a prominent weakness no matter who it gets spun by is the villain of the film. Hugh Laurie plays David Nix, one of the leaders of Tomorrowland. While his performance as a cliche villain is very admirable while at the same time oddly not being too cliche, it doesn't prevent the fact that neither him nor his Secret Service of robot warriors presented a real conflict. Yes, they are robots that help sprinkle the film with great action scenes, mainly another area that Cassidy's Athena will shine, but their conflict with the protagonists never felt solid or had too much weight. And when that conflict is revealed, it is revealed so late that any weight that could've been built upon it is completely wasted.

Final Thoughts

Despite the numerous problems with the screenplay and plot, no one can deny that Bird is definitely a top tier director. It is a shame that this project will go down in history as "the film Brad Bird made instead of Star Wars: The Force Awakens," because he now finally has what can be considered a terrible film under his belt. I don't believe the film is terrible. Odd to say the least. Mainly because I do believe that there are two films fighting to be one. But in the end, the one we got was not the one that lives up to the Brad Bird name. A commendable effort to be different and original. Yes I know this movie is a reference to a Disney Theme Park, but it is still an original film. If only it were as good as many of us hoped.

SCORE: 6/10 - It is watchable, but you'll be begging for one part of the movie to be the entire movie, and not the rest of the movie.

Mad Max: FURY ROAD

2015-05-17T20:17:00.002-05:00

"It is by my hand! You arise, from the ashes, of this world!"

That quote could've easily belonged to director George Miller as his rallying cry to action movie junkies craving the next big thing.

The Plot

His name is Max (Tom Hardy) and he lives in a world of fire and blood. The Road Warrior finds himself caught in the crossfire between Warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) thanks to the machinations of an eager War Boy, Nux (Nicholas Hoult). This brings Max on the chase of his life across the vicious Fury Road as he decides to aide Furiosa with her cause in defiance against the monstrous Warlord. To deliver the Five Wives (Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Zoe Kravitz, Riley Keough, Abby Lee Kershaw and Courtney Eaton) to freedom in the Land of Mothers.

Review

Oh what a film! What a lovely film! MAD MAX FURY ROAD is hands down probably, and will be, the best action movie of 2015! Some are already considering putting it in the category of The Raid and The Raid 2 as some of the best new action movies of all time! Do I think it deserves to be up there? Hell yeah I do!

But okay, let's be serious though. I'm going to point out the two negatives of the film so that I can just go on and on about what makes this movie incredible. First off... the plot is pretty straight forward. It get from point A to point B because of reason X. Simple and not exactly that complex. Luckily the film is done with very little dialogue and forces great performances to show off character growth as well as propelling the story. Second... the second half of the movie feels like it slows down a little bit too much than the first half of the movie. This is mostly attributed to the more quieter scenes that set up the finale. But despite slowing down, the entire film is still one hell of a thrill ride!

This is the first action movie that George Miller has directed in 30 years, with the last one being Mel Gibson's last outing as Mad Max, Thunderdome. Pushing 70, you'd think that he would be too old to direct something as vicious and dangerous as this beast. But no, Miller is still completely capable of delivering the thrills the same way he did decades ago directing the first Mad Max movie. The man knows action has evolved, but he wants his old school techniques to evolve to meet the challenge. This is evident as 90% of the film is done with practical effects and very brave stunt men. It is this old school style of filmmaking that ramps up the intensity and makes the danger feel more real than ever. However even he knows that CGI can be a useful tool when utilized properly, and he uses it as a cleaner or to make subtle changes rather than rely on it. This is what will definitely set the film up there in the pantheon of Action Movie Greats. And it doesn't hurt that the cast he assembled to go on this mad adventure with him is filled with talent.

Tom Hardy takes over Gibson's legendary role as Mad Max. In here, he is still a broken man wandering the world with a very mythic quality to him. This is a character who has truly gone insane but is pretty much fighting to keep his sanity in tact. And driving beside him in the spotlight, Charlize Theron as Furiosa. Theron delivers a strong and subdued performance as the ferocious one armed Imperator driven by her singular mission of achieving redemption. Chasing after the duo, with his entire armada of muscle cars from Hell, Hugh Keays-Byrne as Immortan Joe. This isn't his first drive through the apocalypse as he was the original villain in the first Mad Max movie. But here, he plays a completely different animal who is both evil, yet extremely practical with crafting his society. But the true scene stealer of the film is Nicholas Hoult as Nux.

Hoult delivers probably the most human performance and most relatable character in the film. His Nux is pretty much a devoted disciple to Immortan Joe who will do anything to please him. While he could've easily fallen into the category of creepy mad henchman, he transcends it by actually going through a journey that changes his character drastically. This comes from his failures as well as his interaction with the Five Wives, the reason for Immortan Joe's pursuit of Furiosa.

Rosie Huntington-Whitely, Zoe Kravitz, Riley Keough, Abby Lee Kershaw and Courtney Eaton play the objects of Immortan Joe's desire: a healthy breeder for his heirs. While most of them were played by models, with the exception of Kravitz who is a legit actress, they all do a fine job as playing these determined young woman hoping for a better tomorrow. Whitely in particular delivers a performance that elevates her above the rest, mainly because of the position she is in, but proves that in the hands of a talented director, she can become a good actress. But all in all, they are all just fine. And that's okay. Because this entire picture is filled with crazy people already. It's good to have some people who still clench to sanity.

Final Thoughts

There are a couple of smaller details I could point out and one small plot twist that I wish I could talk about, but I'd rather the viewers experience this on their own. This is a film that has to be seen on the Big Screen. A MASSIVE SCREEN! The film is definitely special in a time where blockbusters are pretty much almost recycled by story and method of filmmaking. It is definitely a film that will go down as one of the greatest action films of all time. And it deserves to be. I can't imagine any other film this summer coming close to the amount of fun and insanity that this film delivers. GO SEE IT!

SCORE: 8.5/10 if you think about it, but 9/10 immediately after watching it!

The Death of "Superman Lives": What Happened? - Review

2015-05-09T22:57:00.001-05:00

My Personal Road to "Superman Lives"

I remember sitting in the University Library, looking up any details I can about the then yet to be filmed Man of Steel. That is when I stumbled upon a small blip in my nerdy research that led me to the infamous Kevin Smith video detailing his experience on a film called Superman Lives. And soon after, my obsession with this mythic project that never was grew exponentially. I scoured the internet looking for anything I possibly could relating to this film. From the Kevin Smith Draft, to the Wesley Strick draft, to the concept art, and that now infamous unflattering photo of Nic Cage with a mullet rocking a very shiny rubber Superman suit. But at some point I realized I should be focusing on my studies and not on a motion picture that was never made. However, luckily for me, and thousands of others, one of us was willing to delve much deeper. Enter Jon Schnepp, famed animation director of Metalocalypse and The Venture Bros. as well as famed internet personality, who took to Kick Starter with the proposal of discovering what truly happened to this now infamous film in the form of a Documentary. And after many years since that announcement, Schnepp and producer Holly Payne have crafted a highly informative film that gives eager "sweaty nerds" and general audiences a glimpse into what could've been.

The Truth Behind the Legend

I was lucky to attend the Houston/Cypress screening of the film which had Schnepp and Payne present to let everyone know up front, this is their first time making a documentary. While it definitely shows, that does not hinder the experience they created.

After a very simple intro made by Schnepp, we then enter the world of Hollywood politics and water cooler talks that go way too far. For those who have seen the Kevin Smith video about the genesis of Superman Lives and how he became a part of it, the first 20 minutes after the intro may be a bit boring, with a few interjected interviews here and there to add a little bit more flavor. But to someone who has never seen that video, then the WHOLE package from beginning to end will be one hell of a revelation!

I was indeed one of those people who wished I could skip Smith's launch of the project and get to the parts that I don't know. And it is GLOURIOUS!

From the number of concept and visual effects artists, to the beautiful concept art, to the tidbits of how Smith's story would morph into Wesley Strick's story then eventually to its possible final form with Dan Gilory. The insight, the splendor of Krypton, the painful bad memories that director Tim Burton had to release as he talked to Schnepp. Every single aspect of this film was meant to inform the viewer with one thing: THIS WAS A WORK IN PROGRESS!

The reason for such an angle, and I'm glad Schnepp took it by that angle, is that many people were quick to judge that everything that has been leaked on the internet was the final product. VFX Artist Steve Johnson's light up neon crystal rainbow Superman suit was blasted for being terrible, when people didn't even know the context of why Superman was wearing that suit. The really horrible Nic Cage picture of him wearing the Superman outfit? That wasn't even the final outfit! It was just a costume test to see how he feels about the costume and what they can change. I heavily commend this film, and other documentaries about movies that never were, always address that filmmaking is a process of controlled evolution. And we see that evolution from the story, to the costumes, to the design of the film.

But I honestly have to say. While it is nice to have Tim Burton, Kevin Smith, Wesley Strick, Steve Johnson, Colleen Atwood, and Dan Gilroy talk about the film; there was one voice who I was pleasantly surprised to see pop in this movie. The infamous producer that Kevin Smith has turned into a legend, Jon Peters! The man himself brings his extreme charisma, as well as his wild out of the box ideas that shaped this movie into what it could've been. It is highly commendable for talents such as Burton, Smith, Strick and Gilory to find a way through the madness of Peters to create something that may have possibly worked. But is is clear that this is a movie that Peters was definitely passionate about, even though he is not a hardcore Superman fan and wanted to change everything. But someone who was a hardcore fan and was sorely lacking from this film was an interview from the What If Superman himself, Nicolas Cage.

Schnepp was unfortunately unable to secure an interview with the former Oscar winner, who has now become a meme and long running joke in Hollywood. But Schnepp makes up for this loss with some behind the scenes home video footage provided by the production's costume designer, Colleen Atwood. In there we see the origin of that unflattering picture, but it is a completely different story when seeing Cage in motion in the suit. But what is more impressive about the footage, is hearing Nic Cage dissect and analyze the character of Superman with director Tim Burton observing him. He has a clear grasp on who the character is, as well as how to treat his alter ego Clark Kent. It was a fascinating and intimate video about one man's willingness to put his own spin on the character, but acknowledge everything he loves about him.

Final Thoughts

I've held back on a lot more details such as the plot of Superman Lives and how the documentary explores its evolution. But I feel that those moments and that information should be experienced by watching this documentary when it becomes available on Blu Ray. There is so much more than what I pointed out here, and I leave all that for the viewer to enjoy. By all means though, if you do find yourself curious by this, please go out and buy the film. I wasn't able to pledge money to Schnepp and Payne when they were Kick Starting the project, but I'll gladly pay to own the Blu Ray. This truly is an incredible film that feels bittersweet by the end. It will leave you wondering with one simple question: What if? And that's okay.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - If you didn't see the Kevin Smith video, then this is a 9/10!

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Review

2015-05-03T18:24:00.000-05:00

"There are... no strings on me."

This is it... Finally! A Villain that can finally go down in comic book cinema history as one of the great ones! A Villain that will finally show that MARVEL knows how to create credible threats!............... Or so I thought.

The Plot

The Avengers are back! Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) are now a fully functioning team operating on their own terms in taking down the remnants of HYDRA! But when Iron Man, Tony Stark, discovers a method of creating an artificial intelligence that can police and protect the world, he enacts on his desire to create a "suit of armor around the planet." But that program calculates that the only way to save the world, is to cause humanity's extinction. That program is Ultron (James Spader)! Aiding him in his vendetta against the Avengers are enhanced twins, Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen), who have a bone to pick with Tony Stark, but unaware of Ultron's true intentions. Can the Avengers stop this robotic threat?

Review

I'm just going to flat out say this. The movie is....good. Maybe even okay. But it is not the excellent game changing film that it was expected to be. There are a lot of things this movie does good, but there are a lot of things that the movie.... doesn't do wrong but horribly executes with bad editing. The pacing is completely all over the place and doesn't have the build up the previous film had. However in this film's defense, the opening of this film is a thousand times more exciting than the previous one.

Okay, I shouldn't compare it to the first one. But the problem is, because of how the Marvel Cinematic Universe functions, you not only have to think about the first one but also the third and fourth Avengers movies coming in the future. The film suffers from cramming in too many story lines from previous films as well as setting up what is going to happen next. This hurts the main plot of the Avengers going up against Ultron, because there are so many things in the mix that wasn't really necessary to the plot. And while those seeds are necessary going forward, I didn't feel like they were warranted to the story, which should have been about developing this ultimate threat: Ultron.

James Spader can do no wrong as far as voice work goes. This Ultron's personality is a far cry from his comics counterpart, mainly because he does have a personality in this film. I loved that director Joss Whedon tried to do something different with the robot villain archetype by not having him be robotic, but rather more human. He is portrayed as a dark mirror to Tony Stark, but lacks the menace that was displayed in the trailers. His actions are, but his personality just doesn't fully match up. He is still one of the best villains ever put on screen in the MCU. But he is nowhere near as good as Tom Hiddleston's Loki in The Avengers.

But speaking of Tony Stark, let's talk about The Avengers! You know them by name, and you know who play them. They're all great. Hemsworth amps up the comedy as the outlandish alien god, Thor. Evans does great as Captain America. And while Ruffalo does a good job playing Dr. Banner and the Hulk, it feels like his character devolved instead of evolved. Last time we saw the Hulk, he was in full control of his anger, but in here, he still has a problem with his anger and devolves back to the character he was in the Ed Norton Incredible Hulk movie. His character has a small progression with Johansson's Black Widow, whom we finally learn her backstory, but the romance aspect between them wasn't handled too well. The only two characters who really feel like they've grown are Downey Jr.'s Stark and Renner's Hawkeye.

Stark is still reliving the trauma of what he experienced in The Avengers and the fallout from Iron Man 3. It is his paranoia about not wanting to experience such trauma ever again that causes him to create Ultron, which works brilliantly well for him. But the real standout of the team is Hawkeye, because in here we not only get to see him as the sarcastic character he is known to be, but also get a sense of who he is and why he wants to be an Avenger. He is pretty much the most developed character among the original core team, but there are new kids on the block. And one of them steals the show.

Paul Bettany is probably best known as voicing JARVIS in the Iron Man films, but in here he appears in full physical form as Vision, a fan favorite who is directly linked to Ultron. He is arguably one of the best parts of the movie, despite being quickly developed, it felt appropriate and well handled. Which is more than Ultron's enhanced human henchmen, Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Johnson and Olsen do what they can with what they're given in bringing the iconic twins to life. There is the stigma of Evan Peters playing a far superior and effectively used Quicksilver in X-Men Days of Future Past that completely downgrades Johnson's portrayal of Quicksilver. Still, Johnson does fine, but it definitely is not a highlight. Neither is Olsen, who does a good job playing creepy, but comes off really campy with her fake Russian...Sokovian accent.

Final Thoughts

All in all though, despite lacking a sense of development for all the players on the board, as well as rushing way too many plot lines in a mad dash to the finish line, the film still works fine. It is an entertaining piece of cinema that will probably go down as one of Joss Whedon's weakest film outputs, unless something else he directs comes along to take that title. But even though it is not the strongest film in the Marvel catalogue, it still delivers the promise of spectacular entertainment with Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I don't know if I'm willing to watch this movie again in theaters, but I'll definitely be buying the Blu-Ray. And hopefully, just hopefully, Whedon's original 3 hour Director's Cut makes its way on Blu-Ray to clear up all the mess wrought upon this film. Still good though.

SCORE: 7.5/10 - This was not easy to do...and it really shows in the final product

Furious 7 - Review

2015-04-04T21:09:00.001-05:00

"One last ride."

At this point, we know those words are bull shit. But to me, this is the perfect last ride for this franchise.... But it won't be.

The Plot

The sins of London from their previous job follows the crew home, as they are hunted by a ruthless assassin (Jason Statham). Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker), Letty Ortiz (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman Pearce (Tyrese Gibson) and Tej Parker (Ludacris) ban together once again to combat an enemy capable of taking down their former nemesis, Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson). But to turn the hunter into the hunted, they must strike a deal with the mysterious Mr. Nobody (Kurt Russell) in order to find the means to track down their untraceable foe.

Review

Ever since Fast Five steered this franchise into full blown action adventure genre and out of the very niche car racing genre, the movie going audience has become thankful ever since. And with this Seventh installment, we go into over the top territory with every single action movie cliche thrown in to make a satisfying cocktail of fast cars, manly fights, sexy women and most importantly: Family.

But things start immediately introducing us to the film's big bad, Deckard Shaw, played menacingly by Jason Statham. He's pretty much an evil James Bond with the cool cars and gadgets to enforce his cause. Deckard is a completely different animal compared to his brother Owen, the previous film's antagonist played by Luke Evans. From the very opening scene, we are immediately shown just how dangerous Statham's Deckard is, by how far he was willing to see his comatose brother in a heavily guarded hospital. Deckard is definitely the best villain this franchise has created, despite the fact that he only shows up when an action scene is necessary. That's where Dom and his crew come in.

By now, Diesel's Dom, Rodriguez's Letty, Walker's Brian, Gibson's Roman, and Ludacris's Tej have solidified themselves as extremely likable characters. And it helps, because the plot gets a little confusing later on, but luckily we have so many likable characters that make this incoherent plot watchable. However it is pretty clear that a lot of emotions were running high or stirring beneath each cast member, given the circumstances of losing one of their own before production of the film wrapped. Everyone in the main crew is delivering their A-game in acting for this film. Especially Jordana Brewster who plays Mia, sister to Diesel's Dom and wife to Walker's Brian. Her role may have been minimal, but she had the difficulty of delivering some dramatic dialogue to someone who is no longer with them. They're not Oscar worthy performances, but they are the best these actors have given in this type of film. All to honor their late co-star.

The handling of Paul Walker's passing in this film is definitely one of the highlights of the movie. It was treated with respect, yet it also shows how difficult it was to create something coherent when a major player in the film has to be slightly sidelined or shot in weird angles in order to get his side of the story across. But with what Walker's brothers, Caleb and Cody, could do by standing in his place and Weta Digital for placing Paul's face over their's, it all worked out in the end. Especially for the final moment in the film. But it is pretty obvious that it hurt the plot of the film, as it was definitely all over the place at times, but still finds a way to stay a little bit on course.

The action is as spectacular as ever, though this may also prove to be a growing weakness of the franchise for later films to come. This film pulled off some amazing set pieces involving cars, but the danger has become too heightened to the point where it becomes apparent that no one is going to die if they're in a car. And while new director James Wan is new to action, his car sequences are amazing, but his hand to hand combat sequences could use some work. They were not shaky cam, but they were rapidly editing almost to an unrelenting point of not being able to tell what is going on, that it might as well have been shot with shaky cam. They are still spectacular action, but it is obvious that this is the work of a director who hasn't fully grasped how to shoot action yet. But perhaps someday he'll fully engage in it.

While the film is ridiculously dumb fun that doesn't take itself too seriously, something the Transformers films should learn how to do, there are several negatives. The first being the plot. What started out as a simple revenge movie turned into the hunt for a MacGuffin in a government conspiracy movie. Yes, it is awesome to have Kurt Russell as a new badass character. And yes... Nathalie Emmanuel makes a God damn fine ass hacker in a bikini. But their involvement, along with the terrorists played by Djimon Hounsou and Tony Jaa, completely derails what could've been a simple straight forward plot like the previous two films. It could've been a simple horror movie on wheels with Statham's Deckard hunting down Dom's crew one by one till there is a final face off. And while that does happen, the government conspiracy plot looked more like a means to keep everyone alive and useful than have any real danger for the characters.

Then there is Brewster's Mia and Dwayne Johnson's Hobbs. Both of them are heavily important characters in the franchise, but only show up at the beginning and end of the film. Johnson's Hobbs, arguably the character that helped save the franchise in Fast Five was heavily missed as part of the team. But when he comes back into action, he does bring in the cavalry. One could only wish for more of him and Mia, and less of Ronda Rousey's attempt at acting. Yeah, she was only in one scene in the movie, but her acting was so bad that it stuck out in a movie that should be dumb fun. And the ending does enter superhero blockbuster final battle territory, which kind of felt out of place, but it's still pretty awesome!

Final Thoughts

It's really hard to truly be mad at any of the bad things in this film because it is definitely the most fun out of the re-energized franchise. I will say that it is the most rewatchable film in the franchise, but Fast Five and Fast Six are definitely the better films. But what this film does have to offer is a terrifying villain, spectacular action, melodrama about family, and most importantly of all: a touching and very appropriate send off to someone who is considered the most nicest man in Hollywood, Paul Walker.

SCORE: 8/10 - This movie should not work, but thankfully it did. RIP PAUL WALKER

2015 - The Year of the Spy

2015-03-23T20:33:00.000-05:00

It's not the "Age of Ultron," it's the "AGE OF SPIES"

Did anyone notice this? No? Yes? Well I did. And for me. I think this is great! I'm sure there have been other years were a large number of spy movies have come out within the same time frame or year. But this one stands out because not since the days the Connery Bonds did Hollywood pump out this many big budget Spy Movies. Especially during an era that is dominated by Marvel Superheroes.

There is just something refreshing of having the Spy movie get a new resurgence in the public eye. And it feels highly appropriate that the first two films to kick off the Spy year are two spy comedies. The first one being more of a love letter to the classic spy genre and the other being a straight up comedy in a spy setting. And both of them are original films too. Well... Kingsman is based on a comic, but it wasn't an existing IP in film. This may be a strange way of setting things off, but it is definitely the smart move. Especially for the brilliant Kingsman, which is appropriately the first film of the era, as the film that it is both parodying and tributing is the last spy film to premier this year. And apparently Melissa McCarthy's re-team up with future Ghostbusters director, Paul Feig, is a good time, and is more about a fish out of water trying to play with the big leagues. A nice counter balance to all these seasoned veterans.

It is also interesting that this is the year that James Bond and the Impossible Missions Force are both in the mix. Not only that, with the revelation of Mission: Impossible's title, they both deal with their respective franchise villains returning. Yes, after a rights dispute, Daniel Craig's Bond gets to face off the very definition of Evil Organization in film: SPECTRE. While on the Cruise Train, the Impossible Missions Force gets to face off against their old rivals from Season Five of the original 60s-70s TV show. Yes, if you didn't know, Mission: Impossible is a loose continuation of a 60s TV show. And in the Fifth Season of that show, they went up against a rival organization called The Syndicate. However, they were nowhere near as close to SPECTRE in the evil organization department. But if the title Rogue Nation is any indicator (and a better name than Syndicate) of what they plan to do with The Syndicate, then they'll definitely be evolving as a competitor with SPECTRE for world domination.

But not to let the subject of 60s and 70s era TV shows go away, there is also Guy Ritchie's remake of The Man from UNCLE. Henry Cavill, an English actor, is playing American CIA Agent Napoleon Solo, while Armie Hammer, an American actor, is playing Russian KGB Agent Ilya Kuryakin. Yeah...Hollywood casting logic. But I think there is a lot of irony here, as Cavill always wanted to play James Bond but winds up playing an American spy who is created by Ian Fleming, the author of the 007 novels. Director Guy Ritchie also chose to keep the 60s Cold War setting intact, instead of trying to modernize it. This gives it a nice throwback feel that is more akin to Kingsman, which was a throwback in sense of style but not setting. Time will tell if this obvious franchise starter can indeed hold an audience. Judging by Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films, it is possible. But that may be because of RDJ, than for his directing.

What is shaky ground however, is Hitman: AGENT 47. While not a straight up spy movie, it definitely has spy elements ranging from crazy missions, crazy gadgets, to incredibly hot barely dressed women. But being a video game adaptation, and a second attempt at that, there is that lingering curse that video game movies are just pure shit. However this film appears to be taking a cue from Hitman: Absolution, which is a game that made Stealth an option, but if one wanted to go gun ho they could. Plus, it feels like it isn't taking itself as seriously as the previous outing with Timothy Olyphant, so there may be a chance it can be a lot more fun to watch. And it's always cool to see Zachary Quinto try something out of his comfort zone: an action movie.

In closing, this is pretty much looking like a great year for spy movies. I think the only thing that's missing from this list is Captain America: The Winter Soldier. But it already came out last year so... that's a shame.

Nightcrawler - Review

2015-02-24T16:23:00.000-06:00

If it bleeds, it leads

The motto takes on a whole new level with this film.

The Plot

Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a highly intelligent and meticulous individual, is looking for a job. And that comes to him when he encounters a "Nightcrawler" named Joe Loder (Bill Paxton), who introduces him to the world of freelance video journalism. Recruiting an assistant (Riz Ahmed), getting in good terms with a News Director (Rene Russo) and arming himself with the equipment he needs, Lou sets out to become the best Nightcrawler in the business.

Review

I am late to the game in watching this movie. I had to wait to buy the Blu Ray in order to watch it. And I'm so glad I did. First time director, Dan Gilory, definitely created one hell of a feature film debut with this great examination on the shady business of "Nightcrawling." It also helps that he is an incredible screenwriter, because the script is crisp and easily avoids the easy way out of things when it comes to characterizations and plot points. But none of that would've mattered if the wrong person was casted in the role of Lou Bloom. And we should be thankful that Jake Gyllenhaal IS Lou Bloom.

Gyllenhaal completely transforms into the strangest, yet most efficient, person you'll ever meet. Lou is the very definition of a sociopath. He is completely removed from morals and only views things in quantifiable measurements that shape the reality he sees. And it is a reality that in the end is a very true one. The character of Lou may come off as a horrible individual due to his actions, but what makes him strangely likable and appealing is not just his efficiency, but the way he speaks. There is definitely something unhinged about the way he talks, but it isn't noticeable until he starts talking blackmail. The most difficult roles to play, are the ones where the main characters are inherently evil due to moral standards, but are in some ways extremely likable. He is a guy who is having a hard time finding a job (many can relate to that) and when he finds something he can do, he makes sure he is the best at it (something we can all aspire to). But there is no denying that his lack of morals in order for efficiency does make him a terrible person. And it is electrifying to watch on screen.

Lou's enablers are pretty much the most relatable characters in the film, but what makes both of them wrong is that they are what they: enablers. Lou's employee, Rick, played by Riz Ahmed is definitely the only one who has a moral compass. But because of his disposition of being an individual who doesn't really have many options in life, it easily makes him someone who is not just an enabler but a follower as well. While this could easily be a weak role, it is a testament to Ahmed for making his character not appear to be too weak, just morally conflicted. Then there is Nina, the News Director played by Rene Russo, who is driven to give her channel high ratings with horrifying yet well composed images. And luckily for her, Lou is capable of delivering those things. Russo does a great job of playing someone who initially comes off as being amoral as Lou, but then her morals resurface on the discovery of just how sociopathic he really is. Both of them play such key roles in helping us explore Lou's personality and help us understand just how far all of these individuals are willing to go in order to achieve success. And although his role was a small one, Bill Paxton definitely played a key role in jump starting this whole experience.

But the core of the film is an examination of the long used journalism slogan: "If it bleeds, it leads." This film takes an interesting look in how exactly news stations get their hands on "exclusive" footage in order to draw ratings. Having studied TV and film, as well as worked in a control room before, I know exactly how all this goes on. So it is no surprise to me that what these people do can be considered amoral, especially if someone like Lou is working on the job. But what Gilroy did so masterfully well is not beating it over the head that this is morally wrong. Well maybe he does do it at the end, but by that point it is earned by showing us pretty normal things that we see on the news prior to that point. Especially given its noir and thriller look will set this film apart from others that try to deliver a message. Because the key that Gilroy seems to understand is that the message has to be formulated by the audience, while the story is king.

Final Thoughts

I couldn't do my top 10 list of best films of the year of 2014 because I could never watch all the films I wanted to see for that year. And if I was able to do so, this definitely would've been in the Top 5. Nighcrawler is an incredible thriller about how far is too far in the world of news that doesn't come off as a preachy look on the morality of the media. Instead what we get is an incredible story with a great knockout performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as the ever efficient Lou Bloom. This is definitely one of the best films of 2014.

SCORE: 9/10 - A riveting thriller with an incredible performance by Jake Gyllenhaal

Superman Unchained - Comic Review

2015-02-17T13:35:00.000-06:00

The Superman Story of the 2010s Decade

In June 2013, a comic book premiered around the same time as Man of Steel. That comic was called Superman Unchained. Written by Scott Snyder, a man who is considered one of the best new writers of this decade, with art by Jim Lee, considered one of the greatest artists from the 90s generation, this comic has hype written all over it. Though it is no surprise that Jim Lee would tackle Superman once again, especially since this is the New 52 incarnation, what was surprising to most comic fans is Scott Snyder. The guy is most notoriously known for his successful horror comic, American Vampire, and for writing the New 52 incarnation of Batman. In other words, this guy is dark. Very dark. What does a guy who is usually associated with darkness have to do with a character that is suppose to symbolize hope? He does the unexpected by not telling a story about hope but rather the idea of Inspiration.

As a fun note: I find it funny that both of the people working on a Superman property have the last name, Snyder. Zack for film and Scott for comics. Funny coincidence. No family relation.

The Basics

The Premise of the story is about a young Superman, but a lot more experienced. There are currently three New 52 Superman titles going on with Action Comics dealing with his younger years while Superman and Justice League deal with his older years. And somewhere in-between or around those continuities is this story and Superman/Wonder Woman, the comic dealing with his relationship with Wonder Woman. So in this story, he has grown to be more closer to the Superman people know, but he still has a lot to learn. And that big lesson comes in the form of a shocking secret: THERE WAS ANOTHER SUPERMAN ON EARTH SINCE 1938!

Who is he?

This new (but really old) Superman is called Wraith which is actually an acronym for, "William Randolph's Ace In The Hole." His origin bears many parallels with Superman but in a more deeper sense. Wraith arrived on Earth during WWII after a message was sent into space saying "Help us become better." And so, under the orders of his people, Wraith gets sent to Earth to make the world better. More specifically, he's there to make America better.

It is no coincidence that Snyder would have him land on Earth in 1938. The first issue of Action Comics was published in 1938, and that issue featured the very first appearance of Superman. Snyder also knows that around WWII, Superman was used as a propaganda tool in order to help inspire the youth as well as soldiers overseas. So in reality, the basis of Wraith is what if Superman was still an American Propaganda Tool? After all, we live in a time where Superman is concerned about the entire planet and not just one country. Wraith on the other hand is different.

To him and his people, since America was the country that sent out the message, that means it is the country worthy of being saved. Wraith is pretty much the ultimate super soldier, as he demonstrates his loyalty by pretending to be the second bomb that decimates Japan during WWII. His code is to remain hidden as the phantom that writes history. He could care less if he killed millions of people or if other countries are suffering. All that he cares about is helping America. And that is mainly attributed to General William Randolph, the officer responsible for making him an American asset.

Although that description makes him sound like a cold hearted and ruthless killing machine, his personality doesn't line up with that. In fact, he's polite, courteous, and thoughtful. Exactly the same as what people would expect from Superman. This is obviously another parallel that Snyder wanted to have between Wraith and Supes. He doesn't want to fight Superman, in fact he wants to teach him how to use his powers. Since they have the same method of creating powers, and being on the planet for 75 years, Wraith has developed his powers to a level that Superman could never dream of. He tries to make himself a father figure to Superman, as they are both aliens from different worlds with the powers of gods. But in the end, the extreme almost fascist pro-American belief that Wraith possesses is enough to separate these two from one another. Which is where most of the conflict centers on.

A God or an Inspiration?

The biggest recurring theme in this story is a question that many people have wondered: Is Superman a God who lives off of admiration or is he simply a person who wishes to inspire? The former is the theme that is put front and center for most of this story. And while Wraith is the obvious preacher of this belief, the one who crafted the sermon is Lois Lane's father, General Sam Lane. He's pretty much the General "Thunderbolt" Ross of the DC Universe, but instead of trying to bring down a Hulk he's trying to bring down a more unstoppable being. He is raised on a pretty straight forward belief about Superman that is best described through this excerpt from the story:

To many DC Comics fans, this is the most hated approach of telling a Superman story. I find it interesting that most fans of DC Comics hate seeing writers look at Superman in a different light. Especially when it deals with whether or not him being a hero is really to the benefit of mankind or to himself. Because for DC Comics fans, Superman is suppose to be the epitome of what a superhero should be. He's good because he's good, no flaws, and no need to question whether his actions have any weight to them. Which, as a DC Comics fan, I think is complete bull shit. It is a wonder why DC Comics is afraid of doing anything innovative with their characters because the fan base is so old school that it makes me want to snap some necks (haha get it? Bad joke.)

Yet while I stated that the theme is mostly about the former, Superman's actions and his true ideals are more about the latter of what people have wondered: He's an inspiration. This is how he sees himself and that's how he holds himself. He keeps doing what he's doing not because he wants the public to adore him, but he because he believes he can inspire people to do better. Which is the complete opposite of Wraith's ideology. In a way, Wraith is manipulating the world to make America better, which can be viewed as how people would expect Superman to act. Luckily for us, he's not like that. And Snyder excels at illustrating these contrasting points in a very interesting story.

Everything is connected

While the premise of the story is Superman meeting a more powerful and patriotic version of himself, the main thrust is actually the threat of a terrorist group called Ascension. And while that is going on, Lois Lane is brought back into stubborn, yet caring, reporter prominence as she goes after a lead from a mysterious man claiming ties with Ascension. And while ALL OF THAT is going on, Lex Luthor is taking advantage of the situation and hatching his own elaborate plan that involves Superman's pal, Jimmy Olsen. Snyder has managed to keep all these parts moving in a very fluid way with each separate component locking into place to tell a pretty grand story.

On the surface, Ascension appears to be Superman's equivalent to The Court of Owls who reside in Gotham. Both villainous organizations were created by Snyder and both deal with the an unknown part of history that is tied directly to the hero. Ascension for Superman and The Court of Owls for Batman. But because The Court of Owls had a longer story arc in the Batman main series, in this mini-series, Ascension was not given that much room to develop and ultimately become a cliche from a Michael Bay Transformers conspiracy plot. Except... you know... Better. But it still doesn't hide the fact they weren't that interesting. Which is fine because the obvious primary opponent of the story is suppose to be Wraith, so they mainly serve as something to allow Superman and Wraith to display their ideologies. But where Snyder may have not much success in creating new characters, despite Wraith being fairly fresh, he does excel even more with the establish characters. Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, and Lex Luthor are just exactly how casual fans know them to be, and that is a good thing.

A criticism of the New 52 Superman line is the change of Lois Lane and Superman not being romantically linked at all. Everyone knows that the two of them are in love, but in the New 52 they're not remotely interested in each other. But in this story, we see something that has not really been explored that much in the New 52: The moment they realize they might feel something for each other. Not love, but feel. After all, if one is keeping track of the timeline in continuity, Superman is currently in a relationship with Wonder Woman, who does show up in the story. But Snyder makes a smart decision in not showing Superman and Wonder Woman together or acknowledging they're suppose to be a couple at this time. This helps new readers who are expecting a Superman story that has Lois potentially discovering that she feels something for Superman. It is a nice way of having these two being there for each other, but also for New 52 readers to feel some relief that finally the core relationship between the two characters is definitely going to happen soon.

Lex Luthor is also what people would expect from a casual fan of Superman. In this one he dresses like the business man mainstream Superman fans know, but his execution is definitely more in line with his classical mad scientist personality from the old comics. Snyder obviously loves the classics because this story is filled with them, so it really should be no surprise that his Luthor is a classic take on the character. He talks in long speeches, the way a classic comic book villain would, except when he does give his speech it is after he has done something or when he is in prison. But because we are dealing with the modern age, Snyder does let Luthor keep the business suit. However there is no denying that this Lex Luthor is a throwback to the original mad scientist. Yet Snyder refines him with a very philosophical edge. One can almost say that he is the exact same Lex Luthor from the legendary All-Star Superman storyline, which is by no means a bad thing. At first he may seem out of place, especially since his sub plot mainly involves Jimmy Olsen, but when it does come together at the end, he fits in quite nicely.

Overall Impressions

If you didn't read all that and just wanted to know what I thought about this 9 issue series, then the answer is simple: It's good. This is a good comic for the average comic book reader and casual Superman fan. Old school Superman fans who have been angry with the New 52 should give this book a chance as it is a standalone story that offers nice throwbacks to the old school Superman comics with a very modern story. Wraith is a great new anti-villain who I can picture coming back as an anti-hero character, and a welcoming addition into Superman's rogues gallery. It isn't the greatest Superman story of all time, but compared to everything the New 52 has been doing with Superman, it is the best Superman story of the New 52 era. I highly recommend this book. Even though the ending is the only predictable part of the story, it is a throwback to classic comics with a modern twist. And in those classics, you know the hero is going to win. Which is fine for a story involving Superman.

Superman Unchained is now available in DELUXE HARDCOVER EDITION, which is the only way this comic should be read. Check out the cover down here.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

2015-02-16T16:06:00.000-06:00

Manners Maketh Man. Do you know what that means?

Then let me teach you a lesson.

The Plot

Based on Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons' comic: The Kingsman are an international independent intelligence agency operating at the highest order of discretion. They are the modern day Knights of the Roundtable. When their Lancelot agent (Jack Davenport) is slain, Arthur (Michael Caine) charges the other Kingsmen agents into choosing a new potential candidate to claim the title of Lancelot. Agent Harry Hart (Colin Firth), codename: Galahad, decides to choose an unlikely candidate for the high class position. Enter Eggsy (Taron Egerton) who is the son of a previous candidate for the title of Lancelot but was killed in action. Harry reveals to Eggsy his father's legacy and a chance to become a member of not only high class society, but a gentleman knight in saving the world from evil. Unfortunately for them, a powerful evil is also in the rise in the form of tech mogul Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) and his henchwoman, Gazelle (Sofia Boutella).

Review

Matthew Vaughn is quickly solidifying himself as probably one of my favorite directors. There has never been a single movie of his that I didn't like or even love, and this one is no exception. Which is why I have to state immediately right now that if by any chance you don't like any of the following movies: L4yer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass and X-Men First Class; then chances are you're not going to like or appreciate this movie. Especially if you don't like Kick-Ass and X-Men First Class. But if you do, or if you have an open mind, then here are my thoughts on the film:

I love this film. I really do. But don't get me wrong. I love Man of Steel, but that movie has a ton of flaws that I'm fully aware exist. And this movie has some VERY major flaws. But before I get to the flaws, here's a rundown of what I love about this movie.

Colin Firth. The mostly dramatic and romantic comedy typecasted actor finally gets a chance to play a role he describes as, "the reason I wanted to become an actor." Firth gives an incredible standout performance as Harry Hart, the epitome of what the Kingsman represent. He is very much a throwback to not just the Roger Moore James Bond but also a slight mix of John Steed and Harry Palmer thrown in for extra class. It also helps that the man who played Harry Palmer, Michael Caine, is in this movie as the King Arthur of the Kingsmen Intelligence Agency. With the support of Mark Strong, playing a good guy for once in his mainstream career, as Merlin, all three of them are absolute delights as throwbacks to the classic spy movies of old.

In direct opposition to these High Class Old Fashion English types is a modern age twisted American Billionaire named Richmond Valentine, played by Samuel L. Jackson. He's a combination of many different American billionaires, with the most obvious ones being Russell Simmons, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg. Yet Jackson plays Valentine as a success story gone wrong in terms of he is definitely a good person, but his methods of achieving what he believes to be a better world are completely insane. Which is perfectly suited for making him a throwback to the over the top Bond villains of the classic era of spy movies. He even comes fully equipped with his own standout henchman, or in this case henchwoman named Gazelle, played by Sofia Boutella. She's the sword (haha get it? Cause her feet are swords) that deals with the more violent aspects of Valentine's dealings, mainly because Valentine hates blood and violence. Yes, it is meant to be ironic. And it works perfectly.

But most importantly, someone who is not really a standout but proves to be a promising talent is none other than the leading man of this film and relative newcomer: Taron Egerton. His role of Eggsy is a rather cliche one in being the stereotypical rags to riches character. Yet Egerton is so convincing as someone who grew up as a street kid who learns to become a gentleman spy. This role could've easily have been given to an anxious newcomer and played obnoxiously, but Egerton is so likable as the lead that although he isn't a standout as Firth or Jackson, he felt right and is very capable of working side by side with the big leaguers. I look forward to seeing him in a much more meatier role, because I can already tell this guy is going to be an actor we'll be seeing in many movies in the future. But for what we got from him, he was good.

And of course, in a spy movie that's a throwback to classic James Bond films, you want good action. And this movie definitely has a good action. Not as much as other critics and reviewers have claimed, but when the action scenes do happen they're fantastic. Though I have to say, I was expecting something a little bit more extreme, but this is extreme for this type of movie. The action scenes are pretty much more bloodier versions of Jackie Chan actions sequences, which makes sense since Chan's stunt team was responsible for making the action in the movie. It is also very commendable that Firth and Egerton did 90% of their own stunts, which is incredible to look at. But both of them are still second fiddle compared to Boutella as the sword legged Gazelle. Being a dancer, her action sequences are obviously a lot more refined, and has to be since her character is the best fighter in the movie. Which kind of segues me to one of my negatives of the film.

The female characters are pretty underdeveloped. Other than Gazelle, none of them are interesting. Which is saying a lot, because Gazelle's actions are definitely interesting but as a character she isn't. Then there's Roxy played by newcomer Sophie Cookson. In interviews with Cookson she gives this impression that there is a lot more depth to her character and that it was a big deal for her character to become a Kingsman because a woman has never succeeded. In the film the idea of her being the underdog because she's a woman is never brought up or how important it is for her to become a Kingsman. Which is sad because it seemed like a lot of stuff that revolves around her has been removed for the sake of focusing on Eggsy and Agent Hart. Which it's suppose to, but she was set up as someone important, and she plays a key part in the big finale, but she comes off as not really needed. At least she's not a love interest, I'll give the writers credit for that. And there's also Eggsy's mother played by Samantha Womack who could've been flushed out a little bit better as to why her life went through a downhill spiral, but it doesn't. Now, I usually don't complain about whether a female character is underdeveloped in a spy movie because they're usually just eye candy anyway, but in this film at least two of them were set up to be a lot more than just eye candy. Notice how I'm not asking for development of the Swedish Princess? Eye Candy.

But in the end my major problem with the film is the all around predictability of it. Now, this is a bad thing and a good thing. Mainly because the reason why it is predictable is because it is making fun of how most spy movies are predictable. What makes it feel unpredictable are the dialogue and the execution. But that still doesn't prevent it from being predictable. And yes, there are some people who might argue that the film starts out looking like a children's film that evolves into an adult film halfway through the movie, but it's really all about not having the 150 or 200 million dollar budgets that a standard blockbuster should have. So in other words, they had to make do with what they can and save their money carefully for the more spectacular things and a big finale.

Final Thoughts

Despite being overly predictable and looking very cheaply made for the first act, the movie succeeds by being a genuinely entertaining experience. This movie will make you crave for a more over the top James Bond movie with crazy gadgets and megalomaniac villains over the dark and serious Daniel Craig Bond movies. Not saying Craig's Bond movies are bad because they are dark and serious, it is just nice to see someone bringing back the crazy spy movies in a modern way. This movie is here to entertain and it even tells you it is here to entertain. If you're a fan of Matthew Vaughn's film, Mark Millar's comic books and Roger Moore James Bond movies with a Rated R twist, then this is definitely the movie for you!

SCORE: 8/10 - An enjoyable throwback to the classic Roger Moore James Bond Era

Jupiter Ascending - Review

2015-02-06T22:34:00.000-06:00

"GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

That's pretty much the funniest line in the movie. Besides the "I love dogs," line.

The Plot

In the Universal Business of Time and Youth, the three sibling heirs (Eddie Redmayne, Tuppence Middleton, and Douglas Booth) of the Abrasax Family compete to possess the Earth. The problem is, standing in their way is the sole heir to the planet Earth. Her name is Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), who is the genetic reincarnation of the Abrasax siblings' mother, The Queen of the Universe. With bounty hunters hired by each sibling to capture her, Jupiter is thrusted into a world that goes beyond the planet Earth and into the large universe of industry. Her only protector is an albino werewolf soldier named Caine (Channing Tatum) whose allegiance may lie with one of the three siblings who desire her capture... or her death.

Review

If that plot synopsis confused you, then chances are this movie will. Well, it actually won't. The Wachowski Siblings are probably best known as the directors who gave the world The Matrix. It is arguably one of the greatest science fiction films of all time, as well as being one of the most influential action films for the post-modern age. Unfortunately, after that movie, the siblings have not created something that would be deemed successful, both critically and financially. I'm in the camp though that does love Cloud Atlas, an ambitious film that was also co-directed with Tom Tykwer. So one can say I was hoping that this film can at least recapture the magic of The Matrix by taking a much more lighter in tone route. And for the first hour, they succeed tremendously. But then after the first hour, that's when things become episodic. And not in the good way.

If The Matrix was about a character entering a universe within a computer, then Jupiter Ascending is pretty much the opposite by actually launching out into space. The film starts with the simplistic chosen one hero plot line, which works really well in the first hour of the film. Kunis's Jupiter is definitely someone down on their luck and has a tragic backstory that make you feel for her. Which is how it should be. We're ready to root for whatever curveball in life she gets thrown into. Unfortunately we only feel that way in the first hour. Kunis's Jupiter actually doesn't have a very well developed character arc. She does start the movie with one mood and ends the movie with another, but it didn't really feel like she's grown as a character. Her change didn't seem all that life changing, despite the fact she just discovered she's the Queen of Earth, which should've been a hell of a lot more life changing than what was given in this story. But it was fine.

Playing her protector on this journey and forced love interest is Channing Tatum as the albino defected werewolf, Caine Wise. Tatum has definitely grown into a solid actor, and this movie continues to prove it as he was easily the best part of the movie. Which is saying a lot given that there is a potential Oscar winner in this movie playing a villain. But that potential Oscar winner is not being nominated for his performance in this movie. But on the subject of Tatum, his character is the one that has a more thought out and developed story compared to Jupiter's. And that is mostly attributed to the relationship between him and his mentor Stinger, played by Sean Bean. Unfortunately, their plot is the Z-Plot of the movie. And by Z-Plot, I mean that Kunis's Jupiter is involved with the A, B, C, and D plot.

The second hour of the film diverges into three different plots that don't really connect other than the fact that the three antagonistic forces in each plot are siblings. The first "pit stop" after the fantastic hour involves Kalique Abrasax, played by Tuppence Middleton. Although there is something untrustworthy about her, she doesn't delve too far into the villainous route that her brothers do. Her main purpose is to provide exposition. A lot of exposition. It's a wonder why she's even in the movie at all if she's only going to show up to give exposition and have no effect to the larger story. The second pit stop after Ms. Exposition is a wedding with Titus Abrasax, played by Douglas Booth. He gives a variation of the exposition that Kalique gives during the first pit stop, except he actually tries to do something. He wants to marry Jupiter, so that he can inherit the Earth. Which is sort of creepy given that Jupiter is the exact genetic replica of his mother. But just like Kalique's pit stop, if this part was removed from the movie, it would not make a difference. Then there's the final pit stop in the movie involving the eldest Abrasax sibling, Balem, played by Oscar Nominee Eddie Redmayne.

Redmayne is promoted as the central villain of the movie. And while his character Balem is definitely sprinkled throughout the movie, he doesn't appear to really do anything until after the first two unnecessary pit stops in Jupiter's journey across the universe. While he doesn't give exposition, he could've easily been given the exposition of his siblings AND be a more MENACING VILLAIN. But instead we have a crybaby who talks like an old man about to die. So he comes off as not being a genuine threat. His henchmen of Dragon Men do appear to be a genuine threat. But like Balem, they don't really do anything in the first hour and half of the movie to prove they are a threat. I strongly believe that Balem's story is far more important than the ones involving his brother and sister. In fact, his brother and sister could've been removed from the movie entirely, which would allow more time to develop him and his alien Dragon Men. But no, his initial menace that was hinted at in the fantastic first hour, does not carry over to the second.

That's not to say the movie is boring. It is a fun and entertaining film with incredible breathtaking visuals. The action is astounding and just keeps getting better as the movie progress. The problem is, there are so few action scenes because in between are long periods of talking about business and harvesting and politics. Which is why if the movie just focused on Balem as the central antagonist, this movie would've been so much better. It saddens me to say that, because Tuppence Middleton and Douglas Booth gave far better performances as antagonists than Eddie Redmayne.

Final Thoughts

This is a genuinely entertaining movie. I was not bored while watching it. Like I said, the first hour, which takes place predominantly on Earth, is a fantastic way to begin a movie then send us off on a journey to space. Unfortunately, no matter how beautiful space is, the second hour just doesn't live up to the adventure promised in the first hour. When we're suppose to be feeling something for Kunis's Jupiter, we instead feel more for Tatum's Caine and Bean's Stinger. All in all, despite all that, I'd say it is a fun watch. It is after all an original film, so it is always good to see something new. Even though it falls apart in the final hour. At least it's not a complete disaster.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - An extraordinary first hr, but a disappointing yet still entertaining second hr

Seventh Son - Review

2015-02-06T21:27:00.000-06:00

What did Jeff Bridges say?

That's what I was asking myself through nearly half of this movie. And the other thing I was asking myself: Why am I watching this movie?

The Plot

When an evil witch queen named Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore) escapes from imprisonment, it is up to the last Spook, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges), to stop her. But to do so, he must recruit a new apprentice to continue the legacy of the Spooks. That apprentice must be a seventh son of a seventh son. And that apprentice is Tom Ward (Ben Barnes). Master Gregory must train Tom in the art of the Spooks in time to combat the growing forces of darkness, before it is too late.

Review

People know that I have a huge problem with modern fantasy films, post Lord of the Rings. My article, Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined fairy tale movies, goes in depth about my problems. Basically I always felt that fantasy films shouldn't try to be grand with CGI armies and the need to create an ensemble of heroes. And this film goes back to the basic standards of classic Ray Harryhausen fantasy storytelling: a simple battle between a handful of heroes versus one powerful villain, with about three monsters standing in the way. Simple. The problem with this movie though? It was TOO simple. Like anyone in the audience can predict what was going to happen, even to the point of what people were going to say.

I felt like my five year old self writing a script and seeing it come to life as I think. But then I remember my writing level as a five year old is more complex than what was shown here. Anyone below the age of five could've made a far more interesting story than this one. Which is a shame because I know this is based on a book, and I feel really bad for the author, knowing that his work has been devolved into the seed of a story instead of a fully grown story. There was a lot of potential here in doing an updated fantasy take of "the hero's journey," but instead it is just a very baby steps approach of "the hero's journey."

I wish I can say the acting of two powerhouse actors saved this movie. But they don't. Jeff Bridges and Juliane Moore are two of the best veteran actors a director could dream of having in their movie. But here, they seem to know they are in something horrible because they both over act and chew the scenery. Bridges is once again playing a more drunk version of his character from True Grit, Rooster Cogburn. Which was good for True Grit. It is not good for this movie. Especially if the character is so drunk that I could barely understand a word Bridges was saying. And Moore is pretty much playing a more trashy version of Maleficent. Which, it's cool that she's straight up evil with a very small redeemable quality, but she was just over exaggerating her evilness. To give a good comparison, when Angelina Jolie played Maleficent as evil, it is classy and poisonous. Moore was not classy and just psychotic. Which doesn't work well for a queen of the witches. Especially if all the other witches appear more classy than her.

Then there's our main character played by Ben Barnes and his love interest, Alice, played by Alicia Vikander. These two are obviously very talented actors. The big problem is their material is so thin that they couldn't prevent it from being boring. And if two juggernaut acting talents like Bridges and Moore couldn't elevate the script, how much more can these two rising stars? There are some cool moments for Antje Traue, who plays Malkin's sister and Alice's mother, and Djimon Hounsou, who plays Malkin's primary dragon henchman. But pretty much everyone else in the movie was just there for service and no real development. Even Game of Thrones fan favorite, Kit Harrington, appears at the beginning of the movie, but his part could've easily had been removed and would add nothing to the plot.

Pretty much the first hour of this movie is just dreadful, yet by some miracle the following 30 minutes were pretty entertaining (which is where ALL of the action takes place), only to fall apart flat on its face in the final 15 minutes. The movie would've been better if the first hour was condensed to the first 30 minutes, and the exciting 30 minutes elongated to an hour, with the final 15 minutes being changed into something else completely.

Final Thoughts

I know I said I wanted a simple good versus evil fantasy story. But I didn't want something so... pedestrian. This film could've benefited more from a more proficiently written script. The entertainment doesn't come in till after the first hour, and chances are you will have fallen asleep before the entertaining part comes. And if you do wake up in time for the entertaining part, you'll feel like waking up wasn't worth it because of how abrupt the excitement ends. I know the director of this film is a talented Russian director, but unfortunately his American debut feels like it was made by business men rather than people with talent.

SCORE: 3/10 - The 3 is for having good vs evil, not that many monsters, and simple...it's bad

Paddington - Review

2015-01-18T12:39:00.001-06:00

There's a talking bear walking around London...

...and no one has a problem with this? No one? Really? Well....GOOD!

The Plot

A young bear cub (Ben Whishaw) sets out on a journey to London from Darkest Peru after his home is destroyed by an Earthquake. There, he seeks to find the explorer who taught his aunt and uncle English and the existence of a delightful treat called marmalade. But upon arrival, instead of finding a welcoming city, he discovers the harsh reality that modern day people are not as kind as the explorer had promised his guardians. But with chance, he encounters a family (Sally Hawkins and Hugh Bonneville) who decide to take him in till he can find the explorer who was so kind to his guardians many years ago. Hot on his trail however is an efficient museum curator and taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) who has more nefarious plans for the furry cub who will be known as Paddington.

Review

Paddington is a surprisingly charming film. From the major turning point onwards, experienced movie goers will be able to see the ending coming a mile away. But because of how Paddington is handled, the predictability becomes a charming stroll that doesn't get too boring because a smile will be on your face the whole time. At least that's the way it was for me. What I was afraid of was the obligatory need to modernize a beloved character and fill said character's dialogue with zany spins on modern pop culture dialect. Instead, Paddington is raised to be a classic English gentlemen by not only his guardian bears, voiced by Michael Gambon and Imelda Staunton, but by the various recordings and books left to them by a stereotypical yet kind classic English explorer. This makes him very much a creature out of time and is under the belief that the England he imagined is the one he will find. This is probably the best way to bring a beloved English childhood staple into modern times without forcing modern jargon on him.

Aside from Ben Whishaw's wonderful voice he's given to Paddington, there was another element that really sold his charm in that people just accepted he's a talking bear. If this film had been made in the hands of an American director and an American studio, there would be an over exaggerated need to constantly remind people that there is a talking bear and that it is weird. In here, it shows people seem far more interested in other things rather than a talking animal. We do live in an age where anything can happen and a mindset that nothing is original anymore. So I guess people not really being too amazed about a talking bear isn't too far of a stretch. Let alone view a bear in the middle of a train station as a stranger rather than an animal. Which is another thing that the film really does delve in very well.

Despite its cliches, the movie contains some really deep themes of xenophobia and how much the family dynamic has changed so much over the years. This is exemplified by very nice performances from Hugh Bonneville as Mr. Brown, the hesitant and paranoid father, who is pretty much the individual who has to grow the most in the movie. He is immediately distrustful of Paddington, not because he's a bear but because he's a stranger. Judy, Mr. Brown's daughter, played by Madeleine Harris, shares some of his sentiment but it has more to do with her need to be popular by disassociating herself with things she believes are unpopular...like a talking bear. Mr. Brown pretty much represents the modern idea of xenophobia, as well as other phobias, while Judy could easily represent the youth culture in how old fashion things are not considered cool. Luckily these two are contrasted by a kindhearted Mrs. Brown, played by Sally Hawkins, and the youngest child Jonathan, played by Samuel Joslin. Mrs. Brown represents the open minded and caring side of people while Jonathan exemplifies the ideal of a child's sense of wonder. Mrs. Brown is initially the only one who acknowledges Paddington as a person and Jonathan is the only one who seems to be amazed that Paddington is talking bear. While it does sound like a cliche dynamic, it works well in selling a point home, especially for young children, which is the obvious target demographic.

That's not to say there isn't some adult humor in here. Which is what I find charming about, and very British, is that the adult humor in this children's film is handled with a lot more class than an American counterpart. The jokes are actually funny, and smart enough to illustrate a point rather than being funny just for the sake of being funny. Sure there are some of those toilet humor jokes you'd find in a normal kids film, but they are so seldom and limited only to Paddington's incapability to understand most things. But other than adult humor and adult themes, there really is some dark stuff explored in the film. Particularly Nicole Kidman's character, the Museum Curator, who is pretty much a well thought out yet cliche villain. What makes her stand out to me the most is that she outright wants to kill Paddington and stuff him to become an exhibit in her museum. That's pretty dark for a film about a talking bear with good manners. And would've been a traumatic way to explain how Teddy Bears are made.

Final Thoughts

All in all, this is probably one of the better made cliche predictable kids films made. Probably because it is a British Production, it appears so much more classier and deeper than other films in this demographic. The performances are playful and are not afraid of dealing with adult subject matters in a children's film. I know that Colin Firth was originally casted to play Paddington, and that he voluntarily dropped out after he thought his voice doesn't match with the cuddly bear. I'm so glad he did, because Ben Whishaw adds a youthful naiveté to the bear cub who is still more polite than most people. Although it is predictable, you'll find yourself smiling the whole way. Everyone should have a bear in their family, as long as that bear is Paddington.

SCORE: 7.5/10 - A nice kids film that deals with adult themes in a very subdued way

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Review

2014-12-17T20:36:00.000-06:00

"I will have WAR!"

Pretty much sums up the plot of this entire movie.

The Plot

After Bard (Luke Evans) successfully slays the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), the people of Lake-town are left without a home and seek to find shelter. Their only option is The Lonely Mountain. There, the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitage), has succumbed to Dragon Sickness and refuses to let the refugees enter. With an army of elves lead by Thranduil (Lee Pace) arriving to lay claim to some of the mountain's treasure; Bard wanting to ensure the livelihood of his people; and an army of Orcs wanting to claim the mountain for a strategic holding; the dwarves and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) find themselves in the middle of a massive war that can only continue to escalate.

How will this day end?

Review

Well I'll give it this. I wasn't bored as much as the previous two installments. But I can't help but feeling that this film just proves that what I've been saying (and what many others have been saying) about splitting this story into three movies was too much. Case in point, this entire film feels like the battle of Helms Deep stretched out for two hours. I compare the battle to Helms Deep because to compare it to the Battle of Minas Tirith in The Return of the King would be a compliment. And that is not to knock on the Battle of Helms Deep, because I have stated in my review of The Two Towers that it is one of the best battles ever filmed in modern cinema. But my reason for comparison is that The Battle of the Five Armies feels like it should've lasted the same amount of time that the Battle of Helms Deep did. In which case it should've been 40-45 minutes in length. Not over two hours. Because everything just felt so unnecessary.

Richard Armitage's Thorin once again becomes a dick. He gets afflicted with Dragon Sickness, which is a fancy way of saying someone is greedy, and doesn't want to share the wealth. Even though he promised the people of Lake-town that he would. And he probably should've shared the wealth to them because their resident Bard played by Luke Evans is responsible for getting rid of the dragon that stole the dwarf kingdom in the first place. But at least in this film there is part of his development from the previous film still in tact. Thorin's trust of Bilbo is still there, and I'm so glad it is because it was pretty much the most redeeming part in the film.

As Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is one of the highlights of this trilogy, he's highlighted even more as being paired with an opposing force in each film. Unlike the previous films where my favorite highlights have been a single scene involving Bilbo and one other person, in this film it is Bilbo's scenes with Thorin throughout the movie that are truly remarkable. Finally, a relationship between characters works throughout the course of an entire film. And I am so glad that it is between these two. And if you really think about it, had this trilogy been a singular film, their interaction would appear more tighter and a more cohesive growth of relationship rather than an overly long spread out growth. It's good that what was built in the second movie is paid off in here, but it could've been handled better. I wish I can say the same for the rest of this movie.

The subplot that was prominent in the previous film about Gandalf finding Sauron was put to an end rather abruptly. While it was cool to see Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) go ape shit crazy against Sauron and the ghosts who will become the Black Riders, it seemed like an abrupt end to a subplot that ultimately has no major consequences to the main plot of The Hobbit. I understand the need to explain how everything ties in to The Lord of the Rings, but all out honesty, this scene could've easily been added to The Desolation of Smaug. Because there, it would seem more relevant, and give Gandalf more room to recover for this film.

Then there's the forced romance in this saga. The subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is resolved here. While the love story is a little bit more believable in this film than the very sad attempt to make it seem cute in the previous one, it felt totally unnecessary. It once again only serves as a way to develop Legolas (Orlando Bloom) into the character people will know from the original trilogy. I'm almost certain that if this trilogy was just one film, there would be no romance and Legolas would just be a nice little role that appears here and there. I would've preferred that instead of this forced development when we already know the end result.

And then here comes my big complaint that I have been complaining about for a long time: the overuse of CGI. I didn't feel like I was watching a film that takes place in Middle-Earth anymore once the battle started. In fact it looked more like a console game cinematic that I'm watching on screen. Not once did I believe any of what I was seeing is real. But within that CGI overload, there are some bright spots. Scenes involving Luke Evans' Bard and his people fighting Orcs was actually real. I'm glad that most of the Orcs they faced off with were guys in makeup and not CGI. It recalled memories of the previous films that showed real people fighting in the close shots, only resulting into CGI if it is a wide shot. But unfortunately, the practical guys are swallowed up by the amount of CGI put on screen to the point where it becomes very off putting.

I admire Peter Jackson's attempts of trying to replicate the grittiness of war he had in the previous trilogy, but in here it just doesn't work. A large battle happens for the first hour then all of a sudden the large battle doesn't seem to matter anymore in the second hour. It is not very well paced, badly edited, and very spotty. I was even wondering at points, "where the f**k did those rams come from?" It just tried to outstretch something that is not meant to be this long into something that is inevitably bloated and in the end very underwhelming. Especially when the giant worms from Dune make a cameo.

Final Thoughts

If you'll notice, not once did I praise the ensemble. Because while everyone is giving it their all, the terrible writing and overload of filler material weighs down on anything that would make them appear to be a perfect ensemble. Which is a shame because I really like Luke Evans and Lee Pace, but in the end they seem more like background characters in this film than important key players. And I feel even more sorry for the ensemble of the Dwarves because other than Armitage's Thorin, I could care less about the rest of them. Martin Freeman is definitely the best highlight of this series and I couldn't have asked for a better person to play Bilbo Baggins. It was nice walking down memory lane, but in the end this is an underwhelming ending to a very disappointing trilogy.

SCORE: 5/10 - This should've been the last 40 minutes of a singular Hobbit movie

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - Review

2014-12-16T23:05:00.001-06:00

"I am fire! I am... DEATH!"

Famous last words.

The Plot

After braving through the treacherous lands of the Goblins, Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the Dwarves must make their way through Mirkwood Forest. But to do so, they must get out of the clutches of its Elven King, Thranduil (Lee Pace). And if they are lucky, they'll then have to make it to Lake-town, a human settlement near the edge of The Lonely Mountain. Inside the mountain is the kingdom of Erebor, the dwarves home. Inside is the coveted Arkenstone of the dwarves that Bilbo must steal from Erebor's current king, the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch)!

Meanwhile Gandalf (Ian McKellan) is investigating a possible dark conspiracy being perpetrated by a mysterious Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch...again).

Review

Okay now, this is much better!.... by a very small margin. And I mean a very small margin. I'll just start with the positives.

The best part of the entire movie is definitely the one that fans have been waiting for: Bilbo (Martin Freeman) versus Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) in a battle of wits! A hobbit talking his way out of getting killed by a dragon! What is not to like about that? The Sherlock duo is reunited in probably the most ingenious way possible. Cumberbatch is terrifying as a villain. Just look at his portrayal of Khan... I mean John Harrison (really?) in Stark Trek Into Darkness. He just does it so well, and he is even more terrifying as a highly intelligent dragon the size of Godzilla. The sheer vastness and most of the film's CGI budget is definitely shown on screen. He is probably the most realistically rendered creature in this trilogy besides Gollum, and it is completely necessary. The detail of Smaug helps sell that this massive thing is having a conversation with a tiny Bilbo, who is made even tinier because he's a hobbit. Freeman and Cumberbatch are excellent as dueling and complimenting personalities on Sherlock, but in here they are even more incredible as extreme rivals. I find it funny that they did not actually interact with each other on set, but it feels just as natural as they do on Sherlock. These two are pure gold in this movie, and the fact that they're conversation takes place on mountains of gold helps too.

Then there's Gandalf and Radagast's story about finding a Necromancer that is supposedly stirring things up. I guess I just like the wizard characters so much because I found what they're doing to be a lot more interesting than what the actual plot of the movie is. This is probably because I always wondered why does Gandalf keep disappearing in the book and Tolkien fans have also wondered what the f**k happened to Radagast? While I know the Radagast portion of his involvement is made up in the film, Gandalf's search for the Necromancer (also played by Cumberbatch) is canon in the Appendices. Though as much as I like this story, it does seem to be a little bit out of place in this film and does not flow smoothly with the main plot. But there is an upgrade to the main plot.

One of them being Luke Evans as Bard, a man who has to live with his forefather's disgrace of being unable to kill a dragon. Which if you know how big Smaug is compared to a regular human, I think his fellow Lake-town people are over exaggerating how easy it should be to kill one. Because it's not. Though he serves only to be the one guy who helps the dwarves, he doesn't really have much going for him other than a weighted backstory. In fact it really is the only thing that drives him, which I'm sure will follow through in the next film. Evans is a highly underrated actor who makes even the worst roles in terrible movies far more compelling and memorable than they have any right to be. The same goes for this movie. But for now he's just a tool to help the dwarves. And speaking of dwarves...

Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield is starting to become a sympathetic character. Hints of it were shown at the end of the previous movie, but in here is where we really start to see the strong no nonsense king start to break out of his shell. It shows both the best and worst qualities of Thorin, giving Armitage a lot of room to show off why he's casted in this movie. However what I'm afraid of is that this will be the movie where ALL of his character development happens given that the story was unnecessarily stretched out to three movies. Hopefully the next film has more to offer for Thorin.

As for the other dwarves, they don't really change that much. With the exception of Kili (Aidan Turner) who is given the role of giving this movie a love story. Who is the lucky lady? An elf. In fact, a completely original character created for this movie. Because there needs to be another woman in this movie who seems important, but really isn't.

I'm talking about Evangeline Lily as Tauriel, an elven warrior of a lower caste in the kingdom of Mirkwood. She has the luxury of being the woman of Legolas's desire. Yup, Orlando Bloom is here again playing Legolas. While some are wondering why is he in the movie, for fans it makes sense. Why? Because his father, Thranduil played by Lee Pace, is one of the anti-villains in the book. So it would be kind of weird if the filmmakers didn't take an opportunity to sneak Orlando Bloom back into the franchise. Though I was just hoping for a small role, his role has been expanded in order to explain why Tauriel is important. And Tauriel's purpose is solely to make Kili important. When really the one who should be important is Thranduil, the most assholish elf ever put on film. Pace does an excellent job playing a dick, but I keep referring to him as wasted talent. There is so much that could've been done with this character, but he comes off as a one dimensional dick. And people wonder why Legolas hates dwarves initially in The Lord of the Rings? For one: his father was a dick to them. And two: a dwarf is pretty much sending him to the friend zone. Him! So if you really think about it, Tauriel and Kili's love story is only meant to explain this initial animosity between Legolas and Gimli in the trilogy. There really is no other reason to have her or this sub plot in the movie other than that. But on the subject of Pace's Thranduil, he's still a far more compelling one dimensional dick than anyone else in the film. I'm looking at you, CGI orcs.

I'm once again really irked by the overuse of CGI. It is not just the orcs this time, it is the action scenes as well. There was something real about the original trilogy's action because it actually dealt with real people in costumes and make up fighting each other. In here it is mainly CGI guys doing all the action sequences. And this would look incredible in a Pixar or Dreamworks animated movie, but this isn't an animated movie. The hyper stylized action in the movie is just way too over the top compared to the more toned down fighting that happened in the original trilogy. Though people would point to Legolas as doing some pretty over the top things in the original films, I'd argue that those moments were earned because of how cool and collected Legolas is. In this film, Legolas does some ultra ridiculous stuff that makes people wonder why he hasn't done of that stuff in the original. I like Orlando Bloom as Legolas, but in this film I don't like his CGI stunt double. And it's a real shame again that I have to cluster Manu Bennet into this category because he's compelling, but I just wished he wasn't a CGI character. Just thinking about CGI reminds me of how awful the final act of the film involving the dwarves attacking Smaug was, especially when Smaug is much more highly rendered compared to the other crappy CGI that he's surrounded by.

Final Thoughts

While the confrontation between Bilbo and Smaug does not disappoint, and Thorin becomes a more compelling character, that doesn't mean the movie has vastly improved. Instead I find myself complaining about the same things that I did in the last movie. Too much CGI, uneven pacing, and ultimately a large ensemble of forgettable characters. Just now I remembered that Beorn and a guy played by Stephen Fry was in the movie, and I didn't even mention them in the main review. That just tells me that this film trilogy should not have been a trilogy and instead just two movies. Hell, I think it should only be one movie. Because everything is so spread out that it is killing any excitement in the film. Yet part of me still wants to enjoy it because of that one scene between Bilbo and Smaug, but really it isn't enough.

SCORE: 6.2/10 - It gets slightly better, while at the same time gets slightly worse.

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE
For a review of the next film, CLICK HERE