Reviews
Ant-Man (2015)
The Oversaturation Is Real
I was really looking forward to Ant Man. Paul Rudd was a good choice to take the Marvel formula in a more comical direction. As much as I like super heroes, the Marvel stuff is starting to wear on me. I don't like how hell bent they are on tying everything together and making sure to reference other franchises constantly. I knew Ant Man would eventually show up in an Avengers movie, but the casting of Rudd and the trailer signaled to me that this one would be somewhat off the board compared to what they've been doing everywhere else.
I was wrong unfortunately. The tone of this movie is exactly like every other Marvel flick. Somewhat jokey, never taking itself too seriously, but with a normal plot with high stakes involved. It just FELT like every other Marvel movie to date. I realize that's on purpose. They don't want to stray too far from what made the MU such a cash cow, but that's kinda the problem. Instead of letting Ant Man be its own thing, they made it "Not Another Marvel Movie."
Maybe the most unfortunate part is that I've seen better Marvel movies. There was nothing thrilling about Ant Man. The potential to get creative was pretty much entirely squandered aside from what you had already seen in the trailer. I mean come on. You have a guy that can shrink and go back to normal size at will, and all you can come up with is him mind-controlling an army of ants? It was such a letdown.
Rudd is good but they don't take advantage of him. RDJ had more quips in any single Marvel movie he's been in than Rudd does here. Why? This is why you hired the guy! Michael Douglas is fine as is everyone else. Corey Stoll is surprisingly decent as the villain, though they made his character a little too evil (selling to Hydra, who could basically be construed as Nazis? Come on). There's nothing wrong with the acting, it's just the writing and lack of flash that prevent this moving from being anything special.
When we first see Rudd transform to Ant Man, by accident no less, he's in the bath tub of his apartment and I was getting some great nostalgic flashbacks from being a kid and watching Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. I thought this would be a superhero version of that movie, having the same sort of premise. Unfortunately after that scene they don't do much creatively with Ant Man's abilities. He simply works with a bunch of ants to accomplish the end goal, and not much happens before that other than him training and a brief fight with Falcon (obviously shoe-horned in there to tie in with the Avengers). It's just lame, lazy, and as is customary with Marvel movies these days, it reeks of corporate interference.
They also introduce Wasp after the end credits. We need ANOTHER hero??? The last Avengers movie couldn't even give everyone enough screen time, now we're adding two more people? It's out of hand and downright absurd.
My overall impressions were that this movie was a victim of the strict schedule and format these movies (according to the studio) MUST take in order to maximize profitability. It's not about making the best movie possible anymore within the MU, it's about not going outside the box because it's a proved model. I'm sure millions will continue to eat this stuff up, but it's starting to become a broken record for me.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Fun but cluttered
I really enjoyed the first Avengers movie and thought it was a good culmination of the other more character-driven solo movies. Great action and Loki was well-written and played extremely well. Even though I enjoyed almost all of them, I don't think any of the individual movies are spectacular but I thought the first team-up was a very satisfying payoff.
The sequel was really entertaining, though I think it showed some of the pitfalls of having this many characters on screen. It's not so much that we don't get to examine them more closely (we already know them well for the most part), it's that you're trying to give everyone screen time at the expense of perhaps fleshing out the plot a little more. You have large groups of people each expecting to see their favorite hero on the screen for X number of minutes. It's hard to satisfy everyone and cover everything that's going on in the story. While I think there are a couple elements that could've been better in and of themselves, I would say this problem is generally what holds the movie back a little bit.
Ultron's creation, evil plan, and demise are all given minimal screen time. Ultron himself is shown plenty enough, but anything ABOUT him is quickly mentioned and then on with the next scene. I think this is partly due to the fact that they don't want to patronize people too much, given that his whole "peace can only exist by eradicating humans" scheme isn't anything new. At the same time for many viewers it's not old hat, especially the younger ones. Plus even if it's not completely original that doesn't mean we don't want to understand the character more. I suppose they figured villains come and go but the heroes are what everyone wants to see. I don't necessarily agree but from a box office point of view I get it.
The movie also suffers from the dreaded "computer things happen" plot points. When Ultron is created, it's because computer things happen. When Tony locates Ultron's presence on the internet (whatever that means), he does it by performing computer things. When Jarvis is discovered to still be online or operational or whatever, it's because computers. This is a dangerous way to go with a script because as a viewer you feel detached from the weight of any catalysts in the plot. It basically boils down to "things are different now because a computer did......something". We don't know exactly what the nuts and bolts of all this is, just that it happened, and as a result we don't feel as invested or involved as we did before that type of scene. Tony's crazy futuristic infrastructure was relied on too heavily here in my opinion.
Some other mistakes that I think were made include how many jokes were made. This one was way too jokey. At least every other scene someone was making a wise crack, and the running joke with Cap felt forced from the beginning and should've been left out, especially since this movie has too much witty banter as it is. 90+ minutes and about 50 jokes into the movie I really wonder why it was necessary to have a random S.H.I.E.L.D. lackey provide comedic relief, but that's what I'm talking about. You don't need 'relief' in a movie that lacks tension in the first place.
Also for as fast as the film moves along, the plot hitches strangely at Hawkeye's farm. I'm still trying to piece together why that was included at all. It could've been devoted to something much more important. The same goes for the relationship between Banner and Black Widow. It just wasn't necessary. When I see elements like this that aren't done well that nobody wanted anyways, it makes me think that they're things the studio demanded. "The first Avengers was great but we need more of a human element this time around," or some such thing. Both plot lines seemed forced and unnecessary, and I haven't heard anyone say they couldn't do without them.
When the plot is moving though it's quite exhilarating. There's so much super hero prowess on the screen you can't help but enjoy yourself. I think everyone was represented well in terms of the action, and the Hulk vs. Tony in the Hulk Buster was the best scene in my opinion. These movies do need to be careful with the whole destruction element though. After the first movie especially, it's hard not to watch a scene like that at this point and not wonder about all the innocent people walking around in plain sight. Also, make no mistake: thousands died when Ultron uprooted the city and hoisted it into the air. It's fun to see stuff get destroyed while comic book characters beat the crap out of each other, but these movies don't suspend my disbelief enough to not make me think a little realistically about what's happening.
All the actors have been around the block with their characters so it's no surprise they were solid. Ruffalo in particular is great in these movies in my opinion. He plays the timid, tortured soul well and the contrast between his human form and the Hulk are great. James Spader's voice work for Ultron was very, very good as well. Despite some muddy Russian accents I thought Quiksilver and Scarlet Witch were represented well too, by the actors and likewise the script and effects.
This is a fun ride. A tight, well-thought out plot took a back seat this time around, but for the most part everything moves at a brisk pace and the action is as good as ever. It was more of a popcorn movie than I personally would have liked but it's a Marvel movie, where fun should be the most plentiful commodity, and this movie delivers in that respect.
Fate/Zero (2011)
Great concept, the rest is a mixed bag though
One day I was just looking for a highly rated anime on Netflix and came across this so I gave it a shot and watched the whole way through.
First of all I love the premise: It's an excuse to have a bunch of interesting characters from history fight to the death, all controlled by human handlers. All the masters and servants have their own interesting personalities and motivations. Okay, there are a few humans who are mostly stoic low talkers but overall the characters are really diverse. The animation also seems really good and up to date. I love how well-drawn, colorful anime looks on an HD TV.
My only thing is the storytelling could've been much better here I think. You've got a great cast of characters and a cool concept right off the bat, but I'm not sure it was executed as well as it could've been. There's just not enough screen time for all those interesting characters. Many of them don't get fleshed out nearly enough and a handful could even be considered flat characters because we only learn as much about them as the plot demands.
Not necessarily a big negative, but I thought the pacing was strange as well. There is a one on one fight pretty early on, so you assume things are going to move fast, but after that it's mostly the human masters scheming or servants talking a lot but never actually getting to the point where they throw down with each other. On the flip side this results in the show being deeper than just a bunch of fight scenes.
Another complaint would be some plot devices introduced out of nowhere. There are two or three times where you'll be thinking "Wait, what's this now? No one mentioned it before." Somewhat related is the fact that they're not really clear on how this all works. Of course magic isn't real so it's hard to quantify it, but I had absolutely no idea why certain characters were more feared than others, and definitely no idea how strong their "super moves" actually were. Some rules of the contest that are established eventually end up being ignored, forgotten about, or are violated with no repercussions. It's almost like the rules are a gentleman's agreement, but you don't REALLY have to follow them. That's fine if that's the case but they never really say that.
Overall it's a fun show though, and over the course of 26 episodes none of these complaints crop up too consistently. There's a lot of meat here and getting into some more back stories for the characters could have definitely resulted in at least one more season or even two. The show could've used more actual fighting too in my opinion but regardless you're still intrigued the whole time about who will emerge victorious. I hate to say I think it's a bit overrated, but you should check it out anyways. Just expect to be in it for the long haul to get the most out of it, and for some episodes to be far better than others.
Ôkami kodomo no Ame to Yuki (2012)
Good, emotional family movie
First let me say that if this movie was developed in the US it would be good enough for quite a lot of praise here in the States, and wouldn't be looked at as an oddity like Japanese animation almost always is around here. If Disney made this it would be as well-received as anything they've produced in the past 20 years.
This is a good family movie about a mother caring for her children, who just so happen to be able to turn into wolves. This is not a fantasy story however. The shape-shifting element is used as a metaphor for children growing and changing as they grow, and how parents must eventually come to grips with what their child wants to be, even if it isn't what their parents hoped for. It's a great story-telling device that works well here. The movie is pleasant and also touching, especially at the end.
My only complaints would be that the movie moves pretty slowly. It runs right under two hours but it felt like three. This is a movie adults can watch with their kids, but I'm not sure a kid wouldn't get disinterested somewhere in the middle. Also the ending, while touching as I mentioned, is a little disjointed in my opinion. It arrives not quite when you'd expect and then all of a sudden that's it. I thought it was a tad unceremonious, but other than those two things it's a really good movie that everyone can enjoy.
Hercules (2014)
An uninteresting myth
I was hoping for some straight-forward action and some good old fashioned brawling with this one, but the industry continues to amaze me by screwing up movies where all you have to do is......not screw it up.
The beginning of the movie tells the tale of Hercules in quick flashbacks, describing the adventures and trials he's completed in the past. Defeating a hydra, a lion with impenetrable skin, etc. This was really interesting. So interesting in fact that they could've probably made a movie about it! Unfortunately in a bizarre case of decision-making the writers decided to have this movie revolve around how all of that is just a tall tale, and Hercules is actually just a tough guy mercenary. He and his group of kill/maim for hire buddies use the tale to scare and intimidate those they might be paid to "take care of."
In short we're treated to a tale of a muscly guy who beats the crap out of people instead of a mythical figure who fights interesting monsters and completes deadly tasks no mortal man could hope to survive. Also, he wears a felled lion's head on his........head. I thought it was a goof at first but no, that's really the look they were going for.
So Hercules and his group accept a job that will give them all the gold they could ever want. They train common folk to fight before the big battle at this point. Sorry, they don't train them to fight. They train them to all stand in a square with their shields and protect whoever is inside the square. Because that's what we want to see. Not The Rock tearing ass through villages or enemy encampments or something. They took one scene from '300' where the characters take a defensive position and based the majority of the action on it, and a nice little chunk of the plot too.
Well lo and behold what do you know? The "villain" they've been chasing this whole time (who we know nothing about) is actually a good guy! To boot, the king The Rock has been working for is the bad guy! Why? Because the movie says so! The Rock and his group decide to take on the king and his armies against all odds and succeed, culminating with The Rock pushing over a statue half as tall as the Washington Monument. Seriously. Then there is an implication of "was he just mortal or was he really something else?" *barf*
Ian McShane was the one bright spot in this movie. It's a shame this is what he's relegated to. He's a very good actor. John Hurt was John Hurt, which is fine. The Rock himself does a pretty good job and was a good choice for this I thought, it's just everything around him is extremely mediocre. The rest of the cast is very forgettable, though there aren't too many fleshed-out characters in this movie. They beat you over the head with a little back story on each of The Rock's companions but most of it is just to give you a little something to work with as you watch these people.
Overall, a crap effort but all they had to do was show how bad ass Hercules was and all the cool things he did. Instead we get too much talking and a plot no one cares about.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
No, it really is that bad
You know how us nerds tend to freak out over movies, TV shows, etc. that we don't think do our favorite properties justice? Well that being said I usually frown on that type of exaggeration but honestly this new TMNT really deserves to be bashed and battered. I kept telling people I was going in with an open mind. I thought it would be forgettable but not insulting. I didn't mind the new look of the Turtles because I figured they were just trying something a little different. The voices rubbed me the wrong way but nothing a good overall movie couldn't remedy. Little did I know....
The first misstep is that this follows the Transformers formula too much, where you're watching a movie about people who interact with the turtles, not a movie about THE TURTLES. The first 30-45 minutes is about April and her eventual discovery of the turtles. Big mistake. Far too much time passes before the turtles show up, and even then it's pretty brief. Then we go back to April, doing a terrible job convincing people that the turtles are real. I think the turtles actually fought a total of about 60 seconds in this movie, and 45 of those seconds are at the end.
At this point it's just a bad movie we can all try to forget, but what shocked me the most was the script. I can say with confidence that a loyal turtles fan that grew up in the last '80s, early '90s could pen a script better than this in an afternoon. For some bizarre reason (or most likely laziness) they decided to make the turtles origin this: They were created in a lab by April O'Neill's father who was a scientist. She treated them as pets when she was a kid and set them free along with Splinter when the lab caught fire. You read that right: April actually knew the turtles when they were babies, and 15 or so years later she is the first one to catch a glimpse of them. This blew my mind. The next thing that blew my mind was that Splinter taught himself and the turtles martial arts from a book he found in the sewer. He knew nothing of martial arts until then. We also see glimpses of them as babies and around age 10 or so I'd guess, while they dance to "Holla Back Girl" by Gwen Stefani. At that point I legitimately though the writers were having a laugh.
There are other things that reek of a rushed creative process. Shredder is given pretty much zero back story. He is a billionaire's lackey and has no connection to Splinter or the Turtles. Will Arnett, who is funny in everything else he's ever been in, is completely wasted here. It wasn't his fault at all, there just weren't any good jokes for him to deliver whatsoever. Whoopi Goldberg as the news editor was out of place. The product placement was too much. You could even tell they sold the ads in packages of two. The Skype logo is shown on a phone, then a character mentions it a few minutes later. There is an entire scene dedicated to how irresistible Pizza Hut pizza is, then later on a couple of Pizza Hut boxes take up the bottom third of the screen for a few seconds.
Some more specific atrocities in the script: April and Will Arnett hide behind a desk while the villain shoots a gun at the desk without, ya know, walking over to them and shooting them. One of the plot points that broke the movie was the "fact" that the turtles are actually bullet proof! I'm not making this up, and no not just their shells. Their entire bodies. This wouldn't be relevant if the Foot Clan actually fought them hand to hand, but they don't. They all have machine guns instead. You see, if you want martial arts in a movie you have to do laborious things like cast people that know martial arts, choreograph fight scenes, etc. We don't have time for that. Nevermind that 'ninja' is one of the operative words in the title of the movie and in the collective name of the characters. When you consider all that you have bullet proof turtles standing still while enemies shoot them in vain. Then instead we're treated to a chase scene where turtles slide down a snowy mountain that I'm guessing is roughly 100 miles to the bottom. I say that because the scene went on for I would guess 10-12 minutes. Snore. While we're on the bullet proof thing I also want to point out that the turtles can also bash through the side of a van they're hiding in in one attempt, somersault through plexiglas while standing still, and if a turtle is hanging off a steel girder riveted to a building they will actually BEND AND EVENTUALLY BREAK THE STEEL GIRDER. This all happens in the movie with no exaggeration I promise you.
Look I realize the movie is directed at kids but come on. It's also for people that grew up loving the turtles that are adults. Plus the kids argument doesn't take you very far anyways. The original movie holds up, why can't this? This movie fails in almost all aspects. They didn't make it enough about the turtles, the turtles hardly fight, and the script was a slap dash effort and everyone involved knew it. In fairness the script does fall into the "give it a break it's for kids" category, but combined with everything else this is just a bad movie. I liked the style of the intro and opening credits. That's literally it. Unfortunately we all took the bait and a sequel is undoubtedly on the way. I'm guessing since the movie came out on Friday that the ink on the new script dried some time on Saturday around 4PM.
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
A fun ride
I knew nothing of the source material going into this, and it was a pleasant surprise. To be honest at the beginning I had a "wtf is this" feeling, but once I figured out it was a space opera with a lot of purposeful humor I latched on and had a great time watching.
The plot is part of a larger Marvel arc with the Infinity Gauntlet (crazy powerful thing created by assembling some other powerful things) but not knowing much about that didn't hinder my enjoyment. The characters are diverse and very vivid. The humor doesn't get in the way if you don't find the jokes that funny, and the pacing is good as well. You're treated to some cool locales as well.
My only complaints would be that the villain looked like a laughable version of Zartan from G.I. Joe and the movie looked too clean. The latter is kind of a general complaint I personally have with a lot of movies these days though, so take it for what it's worth. I don't know what it is but for some reason when green screen backgrounds are involved no one can look dirty or tattered, and when they do it's very obvious a make up artist did the work ("here let's put some fake dirt on your face").
Aside from those two things, which didn't make or break anything for me, this is a really fun movie I think most people can enjoy or at least sit through even if they're not comic book or science fiction fans. Being a fan of both but not knowing what I was getting into I came out of it very pleased.
Looper (2012)
Had Potential
This was a pretty good concept and when the film started I thought I could've been in for something special. Unfortunately it seems like a concept was mostly all they had, because this movie simply doesn't hold up the further along you get into it.
The first 1/3 to 1/2 of the movie is pretty entertaining. You've got the looper concept which is new, and even though it doesn't make complete sense the film moves at a brisk pace so although you might have some issues with how time travel works in this universe you can set it aside and just enjoy yourself. After a certain point in the run time though the movie just loses where it wants to go, or they decided to go in a direction that doesn't serve what they've built up to this point all that well.
Soon after Bruce Willis inserts himself into the plot the movie starts unraveling somewhat. We are given each character's motivations, but not shown much to prove them. Characters who are absolutely crucial to the plot show up halfway through. We are told of a character or characters that will have an immense impact on the life of the main character Joe, but most of it is only alluded to and we just have to take the film's word for it.
This could've actually been a sweeping, epic 3 hour journey and it may have paid off to take that risk and film the movie as such. I say that because some plot points are breezed past very quickly and a good bit of emotion that should've shone through doesn't.
One dynamic of the movie I felt was new and unique was when Joe meets his older self (Bruce Willis). Bruce is trying to convince Joe that he has to take certain action to keep his future intact, but Joe isn't interested because that's his old self's life and not really his own. This brings up a lot of interesting questions. If you could communicate with yourself 30 years into the future, would you take their advice so your life would turn out a certain way or ignore them in order for things to turn out naturally? The movie doesn't explore this beyond one scene, and it's not the main focus of the story, but it could've been.
One final criticism: You cannot have a movie about time travel and then whenever characters are forced to deal with the implications of it, have them say "Don't start talking about all that time travel stuff, it'll just make our heads spin." That's unforgivable. It's like having a character shoot someone in the head from 10 miles away and when another character asks how they can do that, they reply "You wouldn't understand." No, no, no. Unacceptable. You need to address those things or you don't have a story. Nevermind the fact that a lot of people are going to see this movie based on those types of conversations. It makes the plot more interesting not less!
Overall hardcore sci-fi fans will hate this movie but most people might enjoy it. Other than Bruce Willis killing children (offscreen but still), it's a 'meh' Hollywood product that will entertain those that don't think too hard about these sorts of things. For me even though I am a big sci-fi fan I was able to forgive the plot holes but only until the movie started dragging and took an odd turn. At that point it just added up to a somewhat nonsensical experience that didn't stick with me at all.
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Thinks It's Better Than It Is
I wasn't expecting greatness here, but I like the actors that were in it and thought it might be a fun romp. Unfortunately this is a movie that thinks it's much more clever than it really is. It's like Adaptation with a dash of Tarantino but written poorly. They try to have events in the movie blend with a movie script Colin Farrell's character is trying to write, and it just ends up a mess. Also, from the very beginning you can't help but feel like this is a Tarantino wanna be, with violence mixed in with humor. It just doesn't take though.
Farrell, Walken, and Rockwell are all fine but aren't really asked to do anything special. Woody Harrelson is kind of quirky but other than that the characters are pretty flat. Near the end the script just becomes absurd and the movie feels like it's 30 minutes too long even though it's under two hours. Take a pass on this one. It undervalues the actors performing in it and the writer isn't as creative as he'd have you believe. I liked In Bruges so it was surprising to see a film like this on his resume (or maybe I should be surprised to see THAT film on his resume).
Django Unchained (2012)
Good but needs less Tarantino
I hadn't heard a bad word about this movie going in, but knew to temper my expectations only because you can have a big let down if you go in with too much enthusiasm.
The movie was a mixed bag for me but a little better than the sum of its parts. The pacing is really odd throughout the entire movie in my opinion. The plot gets sidetracked or takes too long to move on multiple times. Also, there are some strange transitions (scrolling text in order to fast forward months in time? Really?) and shots of characters slowly approaching a location which should've been cut down so we could just get on with it. "Jerky" is how I'd describe the pacing in one word.
My big beef was that while I like Tarantino, he seriously needs to dial it back a bit on some of his signature techniques. They must've went through a thousand blood packets in this movie it was just ridiculous. I like violent movies but all the blood became egregious and without a point, and no this wasn't filmed in a Kill Bill sort of way. Also the general gruesome violence shown was too much. The whipping and the branding, okay I can hack that, but the two slaves wrestling to the death while DiCaprio hoots and hollers was a sick joke. It goes on for 2-4 solid minutes of uncomfortable screen time, with shots that could've been easily cut out and we would've still gotten the point. Yes I understand that this is our history and sometimes you have to force yourself to look, but the movie features the N-word throughout and it's obvious that almost every white character looks at black people as their property to use and abuse as they please. We get it, it's clear as day, you don't have to subject the audience to something so unsettling when you've already made your point. Lastly as others have said Tarantino needs to stop putting himself in these films. You're sucked in to a movie and then he shows up and takes you right out of it. It was cute once or twice, now please stop for the sake of your own work.
The performances were very good and that's what held it all together for me despite my complaints above. DiCaprio stole the show in my opinion, though I think he could've been given even better lines/calls to action. To be honest if the movie was about him I think it would've been just as good if not better. Everyone else was above average to be sure so all in all it was a really good cast.
I think as a whole the movie is kind of a mish mash but the characters are fairly vibrant and the performances vault it into "good" territory. I know I typed more about the bad than the good but again I enjoyed what the actors turned out in this one very much, which more than made up for what I felt was a jagged script.
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Pleasantly surprised
I didn't really have any expectations going into this one. It was released right at the time when I simply felt there were just too many super hero movies being released. I assumed Marvel's temptation to gild the lily meant a decrease in quality, but I found Captain America to be pretty entertaining with a minimum of silliness.
I can't begin dissecting the movie without first mentioning the way they handled the physical change of the main character. It was done brilliantly in my opinion. My number one complaint with movies these days is the liberal use of CGI, a lot of which I find very distracting. In this case however I think it was about as seamless as you're going to get. When I logged on to IMDb to learn more about the film I was pleased to read about the clever body morphing used and actual movie-making techniques that were combined to create what I feel is a masterful success. Evans has a bit of a deep voice so that was a little distracting to me when he was a small guy early in the film, but other than that I really don't think they could've done a better job.
I was already impressed at that point, but the rest of the movie is pretty good too. It could be accused of taking it's time but the story arc of Cap was rich and thorough which I appreciated. Tommy Lee Jones was a pleasant surprise and was a good choice for his role if you ask me. It was also nice to see Hugo Weaving in a role that's unique to his usual Mr. Smith or Elrond shticks which I was afraid he was getting too comfortable with. On a random note, I thought they did a good job with the costume as well. The mask was a little goofy but it actually fit right in when you think of the 1940s war motif so overall I thought they pulled it off. Lastly I really liked the ending. I knew Cap was frozen originally in the comics so I was wondering where they were going with that and they didn't disappoint.
I was so very glad I took a chance on this one, but I will admit to having some slight criticisms. The "super weapons" that Hydra was carrying around create some issues. It seems like their guns can penetrate pretty much anything, but during the prisoner escape scene our heroes have no problem mowing down bad guys and blowing up enemy vehicles while you don't even see a Hydra soldier even fire at them. Too much of a shooting gallery, and any time Cap got in some trouble the bad guys happened to have flame throwers, not the all powerful guns they usually carried around. I also groaned a little when Howard Stark showed up, but I understand they're trying to tie all the franchises together so whatever no big deal.
To summarize Captain America is a fun ride. The story is pretty tightly wound and I was never really bored. I think trimming 15 minutes or so off of the run time would've have hurt, but at the same time there were no scenes I minded in the least. A nice super hero movie that's pretty solid overall.
The People vs. George Lucas (2010)
A Good Look at a Fun Topic For Nerds
As a big Star Wars fan I had heard only a brief mention of this movie some months ago, so I was happy to stumble upon it in Netflix's instant library.
What I liked about the film was that they got some hardcore (sometimes scary) fanboys but also some really reputable creative people to discuss the films. Mostly Star Wars fans but also some film industry types. I also enjoyed how they wove so many fan films into it. It will never cease to amaze me how much Star Wars content is out there, and as big a fan as I am I never knew so many people had taken time out to create such things. It's astounding, and again sometimes a little scary haha.
I also enjoyed the opinions that were given. Mind you I am one of those people that has been very frustrated by Lucas in the last 15 years so take it for what it's worth, but I thought they were fair and that the filmmakers made sure to give some grounded perspective on the issues people take with the new films and the re-imagining of the old ones. Questions like "Can a film be altered years after it's been established?" and "Does a creator have the right to change his work after it's been installed as a cornerstone of so many people's lives?" are addressed as I was hoping they would be.
A couple of complaints would be that though they did offer some counter-arguments to us whining fanboys, there could've been more or at least an expansion of those that were there. Also, I really go into it when they broke down the re-creation of the Jabba scene from A New Hope and was hoping they would break down each subsequent change from the original trilogy, however they did not. I suppose that would've been a bit too uniform an approach but I would've liked it and I still think there would've been time to work in all the rest that was presented. I also think that they could've gotten one or two more big names to contribute their opinions. Neil Gaiman and David Brin were by far the biggest but they are not shown often and only in short spurts. Either one alone could've pretty much anchored this entire documentary, so I would've liked to see more of them or one or two more personalities like them.
As far as the ending, at the risk of sounding holier than thou, I think non-Star Wars fans just don't really understand what they were trying to get across. The fact is that though so many of us love/hate Lucas, half of that is still love. No matter what he's done and will do since Return of the Jedi was finalized he has still given us something that has greatly impacted our lives and has brought us countless hours of enjoyment. The bottom line is that we complain because we care, and Lucas is the one who made us care so much. That's what the end of the film was saying.
The Expendables (2010)
Wanted to like it, but it's just bad
I really wasn't hoping for much here. I like a lot of the actors in the movie and at the very least just wanted a little reminder of '80s action movie fun. This movie failed on almost every level.
You've got some gun play and some fights, but a lot of those classic shoot 'em ups were great because the plots, while not very complicated, were straight forward and made you hate the villain(s). The writing here is just terrible and that's even by action movie standards. You've got way too much concentration on Stallone and Statham. I thought this was going to be a great ensemble effort. Instead you've got a lot of decent choices either not doing much of anything or only showing up in spots.
The jokes are just awful. They reek of a writer who's not funny but desperately trying to be. Many of them are really forced. Also there are MANY one liners in this movie that make absolutely no sense. They're not cool or funny, and if you just think about the situation they're used in or the sentence that came before them you think "Huh? Why did he say that? It makes no sense."
I liked Eric Roberts but he didn't have enough screen time for me. The colonel (played by Angel from Dexter) wasn't convincing at all. Not that he really had a chance to be. Right off the bat without much proof we're supposed to believe he's a tyrant. We hear things about why he is but everything's been established about him before the movie even starts and the audience is basically just taking the film's word for it. Show don't tell, duh. Looking back it would've been nice to cut him out completely, focus more on Roberts, and just tighten everything up by going in a different direction.
I think they really missed the point of what they set out to do with this movie. Just make us feel like we're watching a decent action flick from the '80s. Simplify the plot, make the villain evil as all hell, and give us a reason to really root for the hero. This was maybe the only movie in history where they could've just completely ripped off other films of its kind and people would've been perfectly okay with it! Instead it just seems like an incredibly lazy effort that could've been short, sweet, and great piece of nostalgia. It was like after they got the cast together (which was good, not great) they just mailed it in, even more so than a lot of the schlock from the '80s that's way better than this turd.
Lost (2004)
Really good. Great? Hmm.......
So I've finally given in and ripped through every episode of Lost. Overall I was really well-entertained.
The premise is good with a lot of mystery attached to it, the reasons for which are slowly revealed. Well, sort of (more on that later). There are a lot of characters but the show never feels like there are too many things going on or that the writers are forgetting about someone, a combination which is always a good sign in my opinion. Also unlike most cable television the dialogue that's written for the characters is very good especially in the case of Sawyer. His snappy one-liners had loads of potential to be corny but always made me laugh. All of the characters are also very diverse and they're all either crucial to the plot or at the very least, someone you wouldn't prefer to see the show without.
Another thing is that the themes of the show are great. Many draw a straight line from Lost to Christianity but I'm an atheist and still enjoyed them. Ideas like taking a leap of faith and trusting people with only their word are universal, not things religion has invented. The show does hit you over the head with religion every so often, but in the big picture I wasn't annoyed in the least. Much of what happens by the time the show ends can be chalked up to, like I said, universal themes and virtues that don't necessarily have to have anything to do with religion.
The first two or three seasons are especially thrilling. There is a lot of mystery surrounding a lot of different plot points and you're always wondering what's coming next. Another thing that needs to be mentioned is that although the series finale wasn't 100% fulfilling, by finale standards it was very good. So many shows have ended with a complete dud of an episode. Although it's not perfect, Lost's was satisfying overall.
My only points of criticism come from the last couple of seasons and the flaws the finale does have. In my opinion season 5 was sort of unnecessary. There were some things that definitely needed to play out but I think they could have added about 5 episodes to Seasons 4 and 6 without getting into what I felt was an unnecessary plot line.
Lastly, the finale does have flaws. The writers set up a ton of questions from the get go and the last couple of episodes don't reveal a whole lot we didn't already know, and what they did reveal was either underwhelming or as ambiguous as they would be had they not been revealed at all. A few things throughout the show simply don't make sense. Devoted fans will dispute this, but logically there is no argument for what the writers have done with some of this stuff. Some of what reeled millions of people in to never miss an episode was simply never satisfactorily explained. At the end of the day the writers hung people out to dry on at least a few things in order to get people hooked. It would be different if they were fully explained but they were not. Again no logical argument can be made to the contrary in my opinion.
Overall Lost is a very, very good show. I hesitate to call it great though because as fun, thrilling, and mysterious as it is it's unforgivable for writers to place attractive story elements in the plot but never provide any basis for them. It's definitely one of the better shows to come along in awhile though, and the fact that it managed to be so good on a channel like ABC is a miracle.
Inception (2010)
The literary sci-fi masters would be proud
It's a shame that not even a movie this brilliant can escape obligatory negative IMDb reviews. I do agree (as illustrated below) that there are a few things that aren't explain/don't seem to make sense, but overall it's all there. Some people say the movie is too simple and some say it's beneath their intellectual level so I don't really understand where the majority falls here.
I wouldn't say this idea is completely original but that doesn't mean it's stale either. A plot like this isn't unfamiliar to big fans of science fiction but the great thing is that Inception is still completely fresh and new. At the most basic level the concept isn't something completely foreign but it's still extremely unique and is written very, very well.
I'm sure there are some cinema snobs out there that say everything was explained too bluntly, but if you can write well enough there's nothing wrong with laying it all out there and Inception does that perfectly. There's a lot going on including fitting in the main character's back story but I thought it was pulled off nicely.
I admit I became a little confused when they characters reached the 3rd dream level. Supposedly you're in someone else's dream so they have a safe which locks away their secrets. Okay that makes sense but at the same time if you're in someone else's dream how is an architect building all of it? Also, if you're building it why build a snowy fortress in the middle of the mountains? I suppose since they didn't know that Fischer's mind had been trained to prevent mind theft the whole "the architect builds the dream" thing sort of goes out the window. Then again the female architect mentions how she designed the place. I couldn't quite figure out where Fischer's dream ended and her design began.
The other question I had by the end of the movie was: Why was everyone so worried they would be stuck in limbo? It happened to Cobb and Saito and they didn't seem to have much problem getting out. What was the big worry in the first place? I assume it was difficult for Cobb to find Saito in his own dream world so maybe it was a case of everyone being lost and having to find each other had it happened. On that same subject though, how does Cobb even begin to know how to find Saito? You're in your own dream world and someone else you know is in their's. How in the world would you ever figure out how to get to there? Where do you start logically? Long after the movie ended I almost thought Cobb's quest to find Saito could have been a whole separate movie had they chosen to draw it out into two films. Maybe I just missed something though.......but again even if I did: what was the big deal about being trapped??
I see IMDb has some supposed answers to questions like these so I'll check them out. Everything else is well thought out so I won't be surprised if my suspicions of plot holes are dispelled. At the same time I don't think the movie was perfect in that regard. Overall it ties everything together pretty well for how complex this story is though.
All in all this is probably the best movie I've seen in 5-10 years. How often these days does a movie come along that offers vast originality and stunning execution? Pretty much never. Sure in the last decade there have been a lot of good movies and even a few great ones, but none of them felt as fresh and liberating as Inception. This isn't one of those overdone Oscar nominees that you watch and then wonder what all the fuss was about. It's the real deal. A superior example of story telling and translation to film.
Whatever Works (2009)
Not bad, but not sure David belongs here
I'm as big a Larry David fan as anyone on earth so I wanted to give this a shot. For being in my late twenties I've also somehow never seen a Woody Allen movies but always intrigued by the aesthetic he brings. This movie doesn't disappoint in that regard. It's well-written and brings up interesting questions in a light hearted way. I'd actually compare myself somewhat closely to the main character, albeit without the ridiculous amount of negativity (negative, but not THAT negative).
Sure the plot might be a little unrealistic but come on. The only unrealistic thing about it is the pacing, and I assume it's just because Allen didn't want to bore people by cutting in an extra half hour of Melody gradually falling for Boris. Strange things DO happen people.
The only complaint I have is that as great as David is it's just very jarring to see him here. You would think it wouldn't be a far departure from his Curb your Enthusiasm part but it is. Where Larry on the show is cracking a smile and unable to control his laughter to punctuate the absurdity of some conversations, Boris simply keeps a straight face because he IS that serious about being a curmudgeon. David has said that he's only himself on screen and that in real life is when he really does have to act. It just doesn't feel right to see him "acting" in a thespian sense here.
The point is you're never really buying his character if you're a big Curb your Enthusiasm fan. If you haven't seen the show very much I think you'll enjoy the movie more than I did to an extent, otherwise you'll just be wishing this was an Allen/David writing collaboration where the main character was a little more relenting.
The Social Network (2010)
Very thought-provoking and real
I'd like to give this at least an 8.5. Maybe one day IMDb will implement a system that allows decimals. Oh well.
Honestly I thought this movie would be underwhelming just because many of us know the gist of the story. I underestimated the creators and actors because this was a very well done film all around.
I'm all about court room dramas and internet culture separately and it's all blended well here. The actors are all pretty much unknown to me but I enjoyed just about everyone and no one was cliché or distracting. All were believable. The movie is never boring either so I appreciated the deliberate and consistent pace. Going back and forth from the evolution of the site to the law suits was done perfectly.
I'm not really sure why I really liked but didn't love it. There's virtually nothing wrong with it. Maybe it's just because Facebook is such a part of our culture nowadays that it seemed old hat before it even began. Not sure, but the movie succeeds on all fronts in my opinion.
Some people here don't seem to understand that this is based on real life. If the characters seem cold or boring to you that's just because their portrayals are based on people that exhibited that kind of personality. It's not about what you "want" out of a story, they're just showing you how past events unfolded. I don't want it twisted into a story that's only about two friends who split apart or something, I just want to hear the story as it is. So many reviews ask why it wasn't about this or that. The answer is because it's about what happened, not what you want to see. I thought this was obvious but apparently not.
She's Out of My League (2010)
Nothing special but it's definitely watchable.
(I apologize in advance for not noting the names of the characters and their respective actors. It's been a few days and there really wasn't anyone in this movie that had a great performance or had done much else I've seen in the past)
I don't expect much from movies like this. Movies are so hit and miss nowadays it's hard to expect a lot from a comedy with a not so original premise and not much fanfare. Not that a movie needs to be hyped to be good (far from it) but I think you know what I mean.
This movie fills the minimum quota of laughs and they're spread out pretty evenly throughout the film. It's somewhat juvenile but that should be expected going in. Regardless if you feel you're above that don't bother. The rest of the movie is fine it's just not very original.
The answer to why this girl is going out of her way for the main character isn't really convincing. She's dated attractive meatheads her whole life and wants to go in the complete opposite direction. Okay that's cliché but I can accept that. The thing is there's pretty much zero chemistry between the two characters and no realistic arc of them getting together. She just picks him because he's not a gorgeous narcissist and that's it. She admits as much later on but it still doesn't explain why she puts up with so many strange things his family puts her through or his particularly unusual lack of self-esteem. I mean near the end of the movie it seems like it's been months since they started dating and for some reason he still can't believe she likes him and still isn't comfortable being around her. That's very hard for the viewer to believe and if he really was THAT devoid of self-esteem there's no way she would have ever even taken a shot at going out with him. I know it's just a comedy but a little believability on the part of the actors would have been nice. You get what you pay for in this case I suppose.
The only other complaint I had was that the ending was not only a cliché that's been done a thousand times but that it was drug out for far too long. At least make it quick if you're going to make us sit through something we've seen a bunch of times before.
The movie made me laugh and I was glad I watched it once. That's a success in my book. I just think with a little more polish it would have been a smoother ride.
One minor note: One reason I wanted to see this is because I'm a native Pittsburgher and a big Penguin fan. I was a little disappointed they just made up player names like Reese and Fox. I mean come on: They got a bunch of Penguins to appear in that Van Damme movie Sudden Death. It would've been nice for them to get just one player, even a nobody, for the sake of a little authenticity. Very minor complaint though obviously. I have actually been to the Brillo Box, the place where the party near the end is held. I don't believe the inside is the same place. The actual place is much, much smaller.
Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)
A nice little surprise
I didn't even know of this until it came out on instant Netflix. Anyways, at a run time of 75 minutes it was a tightly paced Batman tale that's easy to digest. Of course the premise isn't out of left field for a Batman fan that keeps up with the stories, so I didn't mind that they didn't treat it as a whodunit. Most people that were interested enough to watch this probably would've figured out what was going on very early anyways.
The voices were pretty good albeit a little jarring for those of us that are used to the amazing cast of Batman: The Animated Series. All were fine for me except the Joker. It wasn't Mark Hamill, so we're already behind the eight ball with that. I didn't like his usual voice at all either, and a few lines just didn't seem to fit the character well. Things change I guess, but Hamill's Joker rules all for me when it comes to the animated stuff.
Overall it was short and for the most part sweet. Nothing that will blow a Batman fan away but a worthy side note.
Date Night (2010)
Pretty good if you ARE a boring married couple
I didn't think this movie was anything special, but the problem is I'm an unmarried 20- something with no kids. If there's one big flaw the movie has it's that it completely nails humor that's intended for people that mirror the main characters: Married people that work their tails off, come home only to have to attend to their kids all evening, and rarely have any real fun. The people I just described probably think the movie was a success for that reason and that's fine, but I think overall it hurts the movie somewhat because it alienates every single other demographic.
Most of the jokes are "cute" but they're devoid of any type of edge or uniqueness. For people that don't get out much they're clever and unusual. For people that hear a lot of comedy and appreciate originality and intelligence they're pretty stale and safe. That doesn't mean I think the jokes sucked, again I just think they were intended for one group of people.
I like both Tina Fey and Steve Carrell. Here I think Carrell is 'meh' and Fey could've been replaced with just about anyone. It wasn't their fault though. Carrell wasn't given enough to do when you consider he's pretty talented. Fey is just......hardly used. Obviously she has a lot of lines but again anyone could have taken her place. I noticed she didn't write this movie and I can't believe she wasn't thinking of how she would change a lot of jokes. She's a really good writer.
All in all, nothing special but I will say it moved quickly and wasn't boring in any spots. The run time is just right at about an hour and a half. Not overbearing at all. Some plot points were ridiculous but who cares? It's just a fun little movie. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary unless watching this movie is your once a week break from the kids.
The Shield (2002)
Possibly my favorite drama ever
I hate giving 10's because nothing is perfect, but a 9 doesn't do it justice. There have been a lot of 9's over the years but this show is even better than those.
Over 7 seasons The Shield consistently provides an incredibly diverse group of characters and more intrigue than most TV has ever provided. The web Vic and his team weaves is always winding in all sorts of directions and is often on the verge of breaking. Vic and the rest of the strike team use their authority and cunning to untangle it as best they can, almost always using tactics that are ethically questionable at best.
The whole thing really gets you sucked in and you're always torn because rooting for Vic is easy, facing what he really is is not. What's right and what's wrong? When do the lines begin to blur? It's not always clear, but it's incredibly entertaining to watch.
The other thing I really love about the show is how there's always another separate case being pursued by Dutch Waggenbach and company. It keeps each episode going in different directions and the case is always interesting or has an unexpected twist when it's resolved. I think another thing that separates this show from all the others is that you get your murder/rape case that you get everywhere else, but that only compiles about 30% of each episode and the rest is even better than that. Shows like CSI and Law & Order can't even touch the content this show brings, and I haven't even mentioned the gritty, realistic style it's shot and written in. Absolutely unique and done believably and well. The finale? It's as good as you're ever going to get.
It really is a stellar show. I would say there was perhaps one season I thought was only above average (not exactly a strike against it) but the rest was a thrill ride that was so gripping I don't know if there's more than a handful of other shows that have ever matched it in that capacity. You're always in for a surprise when you watch it and the characters grow on you, some of them whether you want them to or not. Recommended as highly as possible.
Funny People (2009)
Lost its direction I think
Like many I thought the first half or so of the movie was pretty good. They get a good thing going with the relationship between Rogen and Sandler.
After that it kind of unravels. The beginning was good because it was lighthearted with a serious plot thread tying everything together. Then it focuses much more on Sandler's character and even though he is technically the protagonist if they would have stayed with Sandler AND Rogen it would have been much better. Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman disappear for the most part in the last hour and it's disappointing. Rogen suffers the same fate in a different way. He's still there and is still a catalyst but there's a long stretch where he has nothing to do.
Like I said they had the perfect pitch going for the first hour to an hour and a half. Then they tried to complicate things too much. New characters are introduced that we don't really care a whole lot about because they were shown or mentioned briefly earlier but we weren't given any reason to care much. The whole thing ends up being too loosely wound and in the end it just didn't happen. They tried to do a little too much.
Killers (2010)
No, just no
I'm sorry but there was no way I was ever getting into this one. Beforehand the title annoyed me (did anyone really think this would be edgy in the least bit?) and I was not buying Ashton Kutcher as a spy and it was pretty obvious from his past work he wasn't going to "suck me in" as the movie went along. I know everyone is sick of Tom Cruise these days and frankly he plays a spy way too often, but at least someone like him looks the part. Kutcher in this role is just Hollywood trying to usher in a new generation for these movies and it's just better off left to someone a little older with some better acting chops (Clive Owen or someone? I dunno).
The movie commits a pretty big sin in my book right from the get go: The couple meet in France, have a great time, and the movie fast forwards to Kutcher trying to get out of the spy game because he's just so in love with her. *Sigh* I hate when the filmmakers basically just say "you pretty much know what happens here so we'll just skip it." Jeez at least try to hide the fact that the movie is just a way to make a quick buck for the studio.
Anyways 3 years after getting married Heigel finds out Kutcher is a spy and all these people from his daily life start coming out of the woodwork to try and kill him. All of a sudden fat coworkers are skilled knife fighters and goofy neighbors are lugging around automatic weapons to try and get him. Ugh. This transition from normal suburban life to a mine field of would-be assassins takes place so fast and not in a good way. Plus again the whole time Kutcher is trying to harness that "eye of the tiger" his character used to have back when he was a cold blooded killer and nobody buys it for a second.
At the end we find out Selleck was involved with a government agency and had all these people planted into Kutcher's life to make sure he really was on the up and up. When Selleck realize Kutcher was contacted by his old boss, Selleck released the hounds on him. WTF? Whatever, I'm too bored and annoyed to care. The couple has a baby and the movie ends. Good god.
The worst part is the movie tries to create humor by banking on the chemistry Heigel and Kutcher have. It doesn't work because they have none, but it's not totally their fault. The whole "couple arguing while under duress" thing is so overdone by Hollywood. They figure some people still haven't seen it done a million times so they do it anyways. The jokes are lame and we've been there before. I gave it a 2 out of 10 because I did indeed chuckle a few times.
Jonah Hex (2010)
Short and not bad enough to offend at least
I'm a fan of comics and westerns so even though I knew of Jonah Hex in name only this was something I knew I could probably at least sit through. I've seen some reviews and they seem a little harsh. It wasn't anything special but it moved a long fairly quickly and I wasn't bored for what that's worth.
I agree with others that Brolin was a good choice for Hex. I was glad to see Malkovich there but he seemed a tad underwhelming. I think he's a great actor so I trust he nailed the character though. Will Arnett stuck out like a sore thumb in the small number of scenes he was in. He's a goofy, funny guy I just don't really want to see him in a serious role. You almost can't tell if he's for real or being sarcastically serious. Megan Fox is Megan Fox. Why people are complaining so much about her acting I have no idea. She's there for sex appeal. No one thinks she's the next coming of Meryl Streep or something.
The movie looked a little too synthetic for me especially some of the "ultimate weapon" stuff. It looked a little too clean for a western too. I don't know why some movies like There Will Be Blood can look so authentic and suck you in to the setting but others like this just look too fake.
I figured there would be some fantastic elements involved even though it was grounded in real life, just because of the comic influence. That might have prepared me a little more for the stuff others might have found to be out of place. In fairness movies are a little bit like watching a sporting event for the first time. If you don't know the rules or know what to expect you're likely to not enjoy it much. After the first 5 minutes or so I figured as much to not be jarred by some of the more out of place plot elements, so all in all I thought it was a short, somewhat entertaining movie. Glad it wasn't much longer though.
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day (2009)
People build their hopes too much, it wasn't bad
I don't know what people expected here. The first movie was a cult hit, what are the chances the second one meets all the hype and expectation? Almost none. I have my complaints, but I was just hoping it was watchable and in my opinion it was.
The brothers were pretty consistent from the last movie to the next. I could've done without all the spontaneous wrestling matches they get into with each other (we get the picture from the last movie) but otherwise they were fine other than a handful of bad lines. I wasn't a fan of Judd Nelson at all. He just looked cartoonish in this movie, which I realize is less gritty than others of its kind but still I think someone a little more serious would have been better suited. He had some unnecessarily awful lines written for him as well.
Julie Benz's character was kind of annoying as others have pointed out, but I would wager that's exactly what the creators wanted her to do so I'm not going to fault her. The only point I'll make is that I hope Willem Dafoe was only willing to do them a favor and appear in one scene and didn't want to do the whole movie, because if he WAS willing they really dropped the ball there.
The Mexican guy was lame in my opinion. Not funny at all and I didn't understand his fits of sobbing and why they were funny specifically. Why do you have to replace Rocco? Why force it?
My other negatives were how rushed the beginning of the movie is. In about 3 minutes the saints go from mountain men back to killers, it was atrocious pacing and exposition. Also, the identity of the Old Man was just dumb. So he's the friend of the saints' father and was against what they all do yet he's a crime boss? Oooookay I think it's safe to say that's pretty hypocritical and contradictory.
It probably seems like I have too many complaints to give this an above average score, but to be honest the first movie was lightning in a bottle done by an inexperienced, jerky director so it would be a mistake to expect some mind-blowing experience from the sequel. It was a watchable action movie, nothing more or less.