The World's End Review

The third instalment of the "Cornetto Trilogy."  But it isn't really a trilogy because the three movies (this, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz) really have nothing to do with each other.  The stories are completely different and so are the characters.  In each of the three, you don't even have the actors playing similar roles to the others.  But they are a trilogy in styles.  There are similar jokes, shots and gags that run through all three.  But, most of all, they all place significance on seemingly insignificant things like colours, names, etc.  Because of that, these are more than just action comedies.  You really have to watch and pay attention to get the whole effect.

The World's End had a bit of a different feel than the others.  While there were some of the same gags, it felt more formulaic than the other two.  This is probably because the basis is a set out pub crawl that the characters have to wind their way through.  It made the flow seem a bit choppy and episodic.

But that is overshadowed by some very clever dialogue writing and superb acting.  The film is excellently cast with each of the five guys in the group playing the role that is perfect for them.  It was good to see Pegg as the clueless one and Frost as the level headed one in a bit of a switch.  Add in Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine and Eddie Marsan and there is a terrific chemistry in virtually every interaction.  They keep it moving very fast with some superb comic timing.  They also do a terrific job of showing all of the characters' progression into a continuing state of drunkenness.

While it does feel different from the other two and has what seems to be a tacked on ending, it still entertains all the way through.  I laughed out loud a lot and it never felt forced.  It's another home run from what is, for my money, the funniest group the film industry has to offer right now.  See it.

RED 2 Review

I liked the first one.  The premise of quirky, past their prime spies running around and blowing stuff up while delivering witty dialogue appeals to me.  But, I knew when it was over that there would be a sequel and that it would be an ill-advised venture.  I was right.  This had all the potential to be quite good with a good cast.  But it ended up being very disappointing.

I've said before that a good sequel has to take the things that were successful in the first one and build on them.  After all, you should want to give people more of what they want.  It's what made The Empire Strikes Back better than Star Wars.  People wanted more Darth Vader so that's what they got.  In RED 2 I can see that they were trying to give us more of what made the first one good.  In RED, it was all John Malkovich.  He stole every scene and was hilarious.  They did give us more of him but his character went from being delightfully insane to just a bit quirky.  He still delivers it well but it isn't the same character that we wanted to see more of.  The same goes for Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker.  Their characters were off from what we saw before.  I'd say that Bruce Willis might be losing his edge but it only seems to happen in sequels (A Good Day to Die Hard, The Whole Ten Yards, etc.).  And Parker played inconsistently between sassy, badass, and demure.  It was just all over the map for both of them.

Helen Mirren and Anthony Hopkins both deliver but they could phone it in and still be the best thing on any screen.  Catherine Zeta Jones is what she is: very average in every way.  Finally, I liked Storm Shadow.  He fit the role quite well.

As for the plot, it is very thin and shallow.  There are no surprises and it's actually quite mundane and boring.  I guess a movie about retired spies would have to deal with digging up stuff from the past.  But Cold War grudges and such just aren't interesting any more; especially when you try to intertwine it with relationship therapy between Bruce Willis and Mary-Louise Parker

Don't see it.

The Wolverine Review

I guess it's just time to stop.  The first three X-Men movies were OK but did get progressively worse.  The origins movie was quite forgettable.  There were significant problems with First Class.  But, in spite of all of these warning signs, I still wanted to see The Wolverine.  It's probably because Hugh Jackman as the titular character still seems pretty badass to me.  And, in this movie, he's still badass.  But that's really the only thing that is.

Jackman, as mentioned, delivers.  But, after playing the character five times, he would have to have it down.  He oozes cool and has always had the right look.  There is a lot of witty, sarcastic dialogue from him that adds to a decent level of comic relief.  So, on that front, it's OK.

The problem is the rest of the film.  It's an action movie and should deliver on that.  But the action sequences are few and far between.  When there is action, it's very good; especially the bullet train scene.  But if they are going to have so little of it, they need to rely on the story to keep the audience interested.  The Wolverine does not do this.  The story is very thin, predictable and, frankly, quite boring.  The villain has no personality and are pretty pathetic.  There is nothing that happens that makes you care about the fate of any character past Logan and you know that he's going to survive because Hollywood refuses to do anything against the same old tired formulas.

Don't bother seeing it.  I'm sure you'll be able to watch the next one without much need to catch up.

2 Guns Review

I knew very little about this movie going in.  All of my information came from the TV ads.  I thought the idea of Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington engaging in witty dialogue and shooting a bunch of stuff would be fun.  As it turns out, I was right.  It is fun.  But it is also pretty basic too.

One thing you need to know about this movie is that it is based on a series of graphic novels.  I didn't know that until the end credits.  If I had known that going in, I would have had an easier time accepting the over the top comic-like qualities of the villains.  In that, it is reminiscent of The Losers.  It isn't enough to make you dislike the movie but it does take away a bit from the experience.  Had that been changed to be a bit more realistic, it would have made a better movie throughout.

That being said, the dynamic between Washington and Wahlberg is top notch.  Denzel has always been able to deliver terrific dialogue especially when working with another strong actor.  Wahlberg is decent at what he does especially when he's allowed to be a bit quirky and comical.  In 2 Guns, that's exactly what they did and it works as long as the two are on screen together.  When they are separated, the pace slows a lot and neither one performs as well as they do when together.

At the start, I felt like I was almost watching a remake of Bulletproof with some elements of the Last Boy Scout thrown in.  This made me think that I wasn't going to like it at all.  But then they moved past that with a couple of twists that grabbed my attention again.  Even though it did slow down at times, they were able to hold that attention throughout and make me care about the outcome of the film.  This is largely due to the fact that both leads were engaging.  And Wahlberg's fast talking is better than anything Adam Sandler or Damon Wayans can deliver.

It's nothing that is going to set the earth on fire but it is still worth a watch to see Washington and Wahlberg work together.  See it.

Pacific Rim Review

When I first heard of this movie I thought it would provide a fresh look at dealing with an alien invasion.  It actually looked like something that was mostly new and quite exciting.  After all, it has 250 foot robots fighting giant monsters from another world.  Then, I watched it and realized that it is actually nothing really new.  Almost everything in this movie is derived from another sci-fi/action source (right down to referring to a rift in time/space as a "breach." Guillermo del Toro took a lot of things that we found cool or interesting in other movies and TV shows and mashed them together into Pacific Rim.  This isn't overly surprising given that Hollywood has been suffering from a lack of creativity lately.

Pacific Rim does have decent story progression.  It gets to the point (let's see giant things smash little things while beating the crap out of each other) very quickly without a lot of origin exposition and discovering how to deal with Earth's sudden dramatic paradigm shift.  It gives you what you need to know and then moves on to the smashy smashy.  The problem is that the actual delivery of that story is quite bad.  The writing (especially dialogue) is done very poorly and it is delivered atrociously by the actors (especially Charlie Hunnam).  There is too much emphasis on getting the dramatic camera angle and not enough on telling the story.  Then they went a little overboard in making the characters seem to be straight off the pages of a comic book (the Russians, Mako Mori, Hannibal Chau, etc.) making them unrelateable (this would be forgiven somewhat if it was based on a graphic novel).  It's made worse by the large number of plot holes and logical flaws that can be seen throughout; in particular, how the Jaegers are used.

The good in this movie is in the effects, makeup and action.  The monsters and robots are fantastically created and I liked how they were all different.  Everything looks very realistic with minimal flaws.  They also stayed away from the overly shaky camera work that film makers love now for some stupid reason.  This lets the viewer see and take in the maximum amount of action and those parts are a joy to watch.

Visually, it is good.  But del Toro's efforts to make it more light-hearted than other recent summer action blockbusters wind up actually making it more of an eye-roller and forehead-slapper.  So it narrowly misses a See recommendation and gets pushed into Don't See.

Man of Steel Review

The popularity of comic book movies combined with reboots and remakes made this a foregone conclusion.  Superman is the iconic go to superhero in most people's minds.  So, the question is: did they do a good job of modernizing Superman for today's movie going audience while still maintaining his everyman superhero status?  I think they did.

You can't do much to alter the origin story of Superman or most other superheroes.  The hard line fans will kill you if you do.  So, you know that you're going to have to sit through a long, drawn out story of Krypton's destruction and Clark kent growing up in Kansas while learning to come to grips with his powers.  They alleviated this somewhat in two ways.  First, they made all of the stuff on Krypton very nice to look at.  While we can turn our minds off while they tell us a story that we all know, we can just sit back and enjoy the view.  And they are visuals that are superb all the way through.  Second, they wove the coming of ages stuff within the movie with flashbacks.  This allows the story to move forward with a decent pace while still showing the viewer the entire struggle that Kal-El faces on earth.  It made a 2.5 hour movie move fairly quickly.

The action sequences are a little sparsely placed.  But when they do show up, they are done very well with minimal shaky camera work.  There are a lot of exposition and slower "brooding" scenes which could have slowed the movie down.  But this version of Superman is very well cast and the actors really do step up to the plate.  I had never heard of Henry Cavill but making him Superman was absolutely brilliant.  He has the perfect physique and look to play the All-American hero.  Amy Adams isn't the stereotypical Lois Lane but Lane takes a different direction in this version.  I love that they didn't make her an idiot who can't tell the difference between glasses and no glasses.  Kevin Costner and Russell Crowe are both solid as Kal-El's fathers.  Finally, Laurence Fishburne as Perry White was a very good choice.  He has a air of authority and father figure that plays very well as editor of the Daily Planet.

Lastly, I want to give a nod to their portrayal of Metropolis.  There are numerous famous buildings from around the world in the shots of the city and this gives it a real "every city" feel.  Their use of the International House of Pancakes works in the same way for Smallville.  And having Clark go to Canada to work on the fishing boats was a nice touch when they could have easily just sent him to Maine.  While they do Americanize the whole story a bit, these elements do allow for Superman to be a hero for the whole world.  It's something this Canadian reviewer appreciates.

See it.

Hot Fuzz Review

I've reviewed every movie I've seen since March 2011 and I am just now reviewing Hot Fuzz.  I can't believe I haven't watched this movie in over two years.  It is one of my absolute favourites.

The second instalment in the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy is a hilarious spoof of cop (and to a lesser extent, slasher) movies from start to finish.  But what makes this a movie with such great rewatchability is the fact that almost everything that is said, done, or even shown in this movie is important to the plot and story development.  So, when you watch it for the third or fourth time, you'll likely notice something that you didn't before.

I've said it before but it warrants repeating: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are the best comedy duo since Wayne and Schuster and they're maybe even funnier than that.  In Shaun of the Dead, they both played best friend slackers and played very well off each other.  In Hot Fuzz, Pegg is the straight laced city cop and Frost is a doofus that wants to be just like his idolized cop movie heroes.  It's a different dynamic and I think it works even better when the two are thrown into more of an odd couple situation.  The dialogue between the two becomes much quicker and wittier when there's a bit more conflict.

Throughout the movie, you'll see things that you saw in Shaun of the Dead.  That is intentional.  The movies are part of a non-sequential trilogy that use the same elements and many of the same gags in slightly different ways.  It just adds to the fun factor when you notice them throughout.  Normally, it would be just rehashing jokes but they do them differently.  It's hard to explain why it works.  it just does.

See it.  This is one of the best comedies of the last ten years or so.

World War Z Review

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the quality of this movie.  After all, zombie films are never that good overall.  It used to be because the monster is horribly flawed by an inability to move quickly.  Now, they've gotten rid of that and have them move at almost lightning speeds.  Still, in spite of the tremendous popularity of the genre, there is still a huge struggle to go from cult following to great action movies when it comes to the undead.

Most of the problems with this film stem from the lousy choices made with the camera.  When will Hollywood learn that the shaky camera does way more harm than good.  It never makes you feel like you're in the action because your brain and eyes aren't working together with the film makers to compensate for abrupt movement.  It is just difficult to watch.  It is used to hide the flaws in the tremendous amount of CGI that is used for the zombie effects.

And speaking of which, those effects aren't that spectacular to begin with.  While the makeup is decent, the actions of the zombies in their docile state are like ADHD stricken children trying to pay attention during their T-ball game.  Their jerky movements and chattering teeth were way too comical for a movie that was trying so hard to be serious and break away from the stereotypical zombie films.

Thirdly, there are numerous plot holes throughout the entire film.  These are exacerbated by many very poor decisions that the characters make.  And it isn't just one character.  The whole of humanity seems to completely lose their common sense.  Granted, there is worldwide panic.  But if the UN has enough on the ball to have a flotilla ready for this contingency, you'd think there would be some other proper protocols in place as well.

There are a few good things about the film though.  It moves very quickly with very little down time.  Even the expository scenes have a good pace.  It gets to the crisis right from the start without that boring buildup that apocalyptic event movies seem to want to force on us.  It gets right to the point of why went to see it: zombies and destruction.

Still, the pace is not enough given all of the flaws.  Don't see it.

Back to the Future Part III Review

I like the way they handled these movies.  Originally, it was supposed to be a stand alone movie with no sequel.  But then when there was a demand for a sequel, they planned two right away and filmed them back to back.  Finishing the story over twp more movies allowed them to give the franchise a decent sense of continuity and closure that can be lacking in time travel movies.

While the second one took another stab at the events of 1955, they were smart not to go to that well again.  Instead, they continued the story by going even farther back to the wild west.  They were able to do all the same gags and elements that we all wanted to see but in a brand new context that didn't make them feel stale.  So in spite of it all being basically the same, the third movie is still entertaining.  And even though you start to get the feeling that the McFly family has been inbreeding for a very long time, you're willing to look past the fact that Marty's paternal great grandmother looks suspiciously like his mother.

Ultimately what makes these movies good is that they keep the fun factor high.  They never take themselves seriously and try to make it some sort of grand morality play.  I recently heard about a fourth installment and I'm torn as to my opinion of it.  On the one hand, I would like to see what they will do with an older Marty and the leaps that CGI has taken.  On the other hand, by the time the third one rolled around, I was starting to get tired of hearing "great Scott!" over an over.  So a fourth right away would have been a mistake.  But maybe they've waited long enough.

But, back to the review of this one.  Even though it is still fast paced and fun, you can tell that it is starting to go a bit downhill.  Still, I say you should see it.

Back to the Future Part II Review

It's almost impossible to watch the first one without watching the second one as soon as you can after.  When the first finished the other night, Steph hit the record button for the other two on Space on the DVR.  So, we watched the second one the next night.

Often in a trilogy, the second installment is the boring one.  That isn't the case with these movies.  The second one has a very high level of entertainment value.  Granted, part of that entertainment is laughing at just how off their vision of the future really was.  But I'm pretty sure that they never really thought that hover boards and flying cars would actually emerge.  Or that CCDC sunglasses would make a comeback.  The exaggerated predictions were basically a vehicle to amp up the fish out of water theme for the rest of the movie.  In fact, everything in this one is basically the first one but just more exaggerated.  The characters are all the same but more melodramatic and the situations are even more bizarre.  It worked in the first so they did it in the second.

They did go a little too far though.  Doc Brown and Biff go overboard with their antics and it actually draws away from the story.  Had they kept them on the same level as the first film, this one would have been even better.  I believe they reshot most of the scenes that took place in the first film so keeping the characters on a more even keel would have provided for a more seamless sequel.  But that isn't really enough to take away from the fact that it is entertaining.

The one thing that does irritate me a bit about the movie is that Doc, a guy who is so adamant about paradoxes and catastrophic consequences of interfering with events in time travel brings Marty to the future specifically to interfere with events.

Still, see it.

Back to the Future Review

Because of the whole notion of paradoxes and catastrophic consequences, time travel movies tend to be very bleak.  That's why Back to the Future will always stand out from the crowd.  The bleakest part of this movie is close to the beginning when Doc is confronted by the terrorists.  It's a light and humourous film that never takes itself too seriously even though it had the potential to do so.

You need to know going in that this movie (and its sequels) is wrought with contradictions, plot holes, and time travel paradoxes that are almost enough to make your head spin.  But most time travel moves are simply because it is scientifically impossible so there's no way to properly reconcile all of the questions.  When you realize that and decide to just focus on the characters (especially Marty McFly) and less on the ridiculous situation,  this becomes one of the most entertaining movies of its generation.

I think it's Michael J Fox's crowning achievement and he's had a lot of good performances.  But to people my age, he will always be Marty McFly (and to a lesser extent, Alex P Keaton).  In Back to the Future, he is able to convey just about every emotion from humour (playing Johnny B Goode) to awkward (his mom has the hots for him) to fear and sadness (his future and existence is in doubt).  From when he goes back in time right up to the end, he brings a sense of panic and urgency that makes the movie fly and keep the viewer interested.  All of the other characters are pretty much over the top cartoony simply to be able to give focus to the absurd situation that McFly has gotten into.

See it.  Chances are, you already have and, if that's the case, see it again.  In fact, make it a great Saturday night and sit down with all three.

Fast and Furious 6 Review

I wanted to see this because I like half of the Fast and Furious movies and I was really interested to see how they would do elaborate car chases through the narrow, crowded streets of London.  As it turns out, the best way to solve that problem is to just not do much driving in London.  Right from the get go, this movie is largely a disappointment.  Yes, it has a relatively flimsy story but so do all of the other films in the franchise.  Nobody goes to see these for the story.  We go to see these movies to increase our adrenaline output through watching fast cars and things getting destroyed.  But, when you don't have much of that, the story is all you have to fall back on and that's where this franchise can become boring.

For this one, they tried to go too far with a ridiculous "doppelganger" gimmick and allegedly clever dialogue.  I'm guessing this was an attempt to ramp up the on screen dynamic between Dwayne Johnson and Vin Diesel that was good in the last film.  However, no matter how well those two can work together, it will all fall apart when the writing relies too much on moronic metaphors and allegedly clever witticisms.  And then having a lot of those lines delivered by Ludacris and Tyrese Gibson is guaranteeing an eye-rolling audience.  This is made even worse by having a flimsy plot that they start and then ignore for almost two hours.  I wouldn't mind if they had filled a lot of that two hours with something happening on the screen.  But this one just goes nowhere.

That being said, when there is action, it is decent.  There are a few spots where they leap over the boundaries of realism (jumping out of cars, comically long runways, etc.) but it's a shallow action franchise and I'm usually willing to let reality slip somewhat for that.  The problem is that the action sequences are too few and far between (especially for a 2.25 hour movie) which makes you notice the numerous plot holes , shake your head, and become bored.

Don't see it.  I'm hoping 7 is better and I would just recommend you read a synopsis to get caught up before going to see the next one.  It can be done.  Right before the movie started Steph asked me, "so what happened between the first one and this that I need to know?"  And she wasn't confused at all.

Star Trek: Into Darkness Review

I had been looking forward to this one as soon as the credits started rolling on the last one.  JJ Abrams' reboot of a very popular franchise is the perfect example of how to appease the hardcore fans while still making something fresh for a new generation of casual movie fans and action fans.  So, after doing it right on the first one, it would be interesting to see if he would be able to ride the momentum with a quality follow up.  He did not disappoint.

Right from the start of this film, the action and tension never let go.  Even in the slowed down, expository scenes there is a chemistry between the actors that keeps the viewer engaged.  They struck gold with the ensemble a couple of years ago and were able to keep them together for another go round.  This is amped up with the addition of Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain.  If you haven't seen him in the BBC's Sherlock, I highly recommend you do.  He is terrific as a loner-type that is cold and calculating.  While Holmes is a hero, Khan is far from it.  Cumberbatch is able to adjust and create a villain that anyone would be scared of (I've never seen The Wrath of Khan so I cannot compare it).  He does over-enunciate his lines a bit but I felt it kind of added to the character's intensity and motivation.

Visually, this movie is near perfect.  In an action and sci-fi movie, we demand superior effects and Into Darkness delivers on that.  Everything looks very real and plausible.  The only drawback would be Abrams overdoing the lens flares a bit but that is his signature.  At least he doesn't slow everything down like John Woo.

See it.  Even if you aren't a Sci-Fi or Star Trek fan, these movies are just flat out, great, funny action.

Oblivion Review

Another movie that had a tremendous amount of potential.  It has some very good actors in Tom Cruise, Melissa Leo and Morgan Freeman.  It also has a story that could be quite intriguing.  The problem is that the story is written with a lot of holes that it leaves the viewer wondering "what the hell?"  This can sometimes be overcome with some great action (see Transformers).  But they decided to try and make this a philosophical play rather than a sci-fi action movie.  The problem is that, in order for a philosophical movie to be good, it has to make sense and not contradict itself over and over.  Oblivion fails miserably in this.

It was marketed as an action film and inferred that Morgan Freeman would be a central actor in it.  Freeman doesn't show up until almost an hour through (I checked my watch) and the action is almost non-existent except for very close to the end.  By then, you just want it to end quickly.  It's almost as if the executives knew they had a horrible movie on their hands and the only way to get anyone to see it was to completely deceive the viewing public.

Right from the start, there is nothing to keep the audience motivated.  The characters of Jack and Julia are so boring that you really don't care if they live or die at all.  Then, Jack puts on a Yankees hat and, in a world where if you're a baseball fan, you either love or despise the Yankees, all they do is make a large portion of the audience hate him even more.  So, you start thinking about the story.  Maybe that will be good.  But, as I said, it is so full of holes that you just roll your eyes for most of it.  Here's an example that won't spoil the movie because it happens very early.  Jack has had his memory wiped.  The only thing that keeps coming back is a vague dream with some bits and pieces.  He's completely cut off from the memories of history.  Yet, he is able to describe, in great detail, the final play of the last Super Bowl ever played which he acknowledges, happened before the war.  Granted, he tells Julia that this memory comes from reading about it.  But she's not supposed to know about his little "man cave" haven that he goes to.  So, either she's too stupid to ask him where he got access to this book or his mind isn't wiped.  And it just gets more ridiculous from there...

Don't see it.  I paid $3.50 to see it and even that was too much.  The Sci-Fi genre is so rich with better movies that this will never be worth your time.

Sherlock Holmes Review

A recent trip to London and a visit to the Sherlock Holmes Museum combined with the new show, Elementary, caused me to want to wach these movies again.  I knew I already liked it from the first time.  I wasn't surprised because I do like most of what I see from Guy Ritchie.  I always like the lighting and cinematography in his movies.  Normally, I am not a huge fan of slow motion action but, for the most part, in this movie, he limits it to what is going on in Holmes' head before he actually engages his opponent in a fight.  So it actually is used very well to show how Holmes can predict how things are going to play out.

The best part of this movie is the dynamic between Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law.  Both are fine actors to begin with.  Downey was basically born to play the over confident jackass and his portrayal of Holmes is basically Tony Stark in Victorian England.  But he does it well.  Law plays the frustrated Watson to a T.  And while he can carry a film on his own normally, he is a great David Spade to Downey's Chris Farley (or any other movie duo you can think of).  Their timing and chemistry is some of the best you will see.

The only real problem with this movie is that the story is a bit convoluted and hard to follow sometimes.  This is often true of detective/mystery films because they have a very finite amount of time to show you the things you came to see (action) while still making the story tight with its twists.  So the viewer really has to accept that there will be confusion for some time but it will all make sense as long as you remember all the stuff that has gone on along the way.

After my trip to London, I did notice a few other problems with how they worked through the city and portrayed it.  First, the Boudicca statue on the North end of the Westminster Bridge wasn't erected until 1902 and this takes place well before that due to the construction of Tower Bridge.  Also, the characters would have to have the speed of the Flash to get from parliament to Tower Bridge through the sewers in the time that they did.  But those are small continuity errors that happen in every movie and are largely ignored for dramatic effect.

See it.  It is a fast paced and very well acted detective tale that keeps you intrigued even if a little confused as well.

Iron Man 3 Review

I don't read a lot of comic books.  When I do, I tend to lean more towards the heroes of the DC universe.  So my understanding of the entire Avengers franchise is really limited to the movies and what I read on Cracked.com.  I can't compare this to the comics and have no idea if Iron Man 3 is staying true to any canon regarding villains, heroes or other such things.  I can only review it as an action movie and judge it against the numerous other films about the Avengers characters.

Looking at it in that light, I would have to say that this one lies in the middle of the road.  The main problem with it is that it takes forever to get moving into any kind of real plot.  The introduction and exposition into the actual crisis is really quite long and boring.  The best action movies are able to build these elements while throwing the action at us throughout the whole movie.  This one spends a little too much time brooding on Tony Stark's mental issues in dealing with the events of the Avengers.  While it does humanize a superhero character somewhat, it causes the movie to wait a little too long to give us what we paid our money to see.  But when it does start to deliver that, it does it very well.

Like the other two in this Avengers vein, it delivers on a strong mix of action and comedy.  We've come to expect a certain level of wit from Tony Stark and Iron Man 3 is able to bring that.  I found myself laughing out loud at a lot of his witticisms just like in the other two movies.  Another performance that I thought was done very well was that of Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian.  I would never say that Pearce is the cream of the crop in Hollywood but he has the look and attitude to play this character quite well: the guy who was ignored and bullied but has done good with a chip on his shoulder.  Him and his band of Extremis powered villains provide a very chilling evil that is played perfectly.

The rest of the performances are decent but nothing to write home about.  I've come to make peace with Don Cheadle replacing Terrence Howard as Rhodes and with the amount that the character is actually in this movie, they're pretty much interchangeable.  I normally find Gwyneth Paltrow to be rather annoying but she was tolerable here.  Ben Kingsley is quite entertaining as the Mandarin and I would have liked to have seen more of him on screen because he is such a great performer.

Ultimately, these movies are about watching Robert Downey Jr be Robert Downey Jr while a lot of stuff blows up in your face.  It takes a little long to get there but it does.  See it.

Top Gun Review

It's been about 18 years since I've seen this movie and there are a few things I didn't realize back then.  First, Tom Cruise is Dorian Grey.  Take a look at all of the actors' current headshots on IMDB and you'll see that the guy is not aging at all.  Second, the guy in the back of an F-14 exists solely to jerk his head around and panick while looking for "bogeys."  Third, I think the beach volleyball scene was there only to reward girlfriends for allowing their boyfriends to drag them to a movie about fighter pilots.  Finally, the best part of this movie is Anthony Edwards.  The Goose character is a fantastic Millhouse to Tom Cruise's Bart.  He steals every scene he's in and when he dies, it's still heartbreaking.

But that's not to say that the rest of the movie suffers.  It's still quite good.  Many action movies don't age well but this one does extremely well.  The aerial scenes are still able to put the viewer on the edge of the seat.  Danger Zone is still awesome to sing along to while planes are taking off.

There's not a whole lot to say about the rest of the cast's acting.  Michael Ironside and Tom Skerritt are solid in their supporting roles.  Val Kilmer is as good as he can be (which isn't much) and Tom Cruise is pretty solid even if there is more brooding than is necessary.  I think they tried to make the character too complicated with his sense of loyalty to Goose, angst over his father, and reckless attitude.  So there's a lot of confusion there.  The fact that Cruise could work as well as he did within those parameters is a testament to his abilities.

The one thing I don't like about this film is that the romantic interactions between Cruise and Kelly McGillis bring an otherwise fast paced action movie to a halt.  The pace is quite inconsistent.  It isn't enough to ruin the movie but it does make an above average movie out of something that could have been near perfect.

See it. It's always good for a nostalgic trip.

48 Hours Review

The original buddy action comedy movie.  This is the one that inspired things like Lethal Weapon, the Last Boy Scout, Tango and Cash and even Turner and Hooch with its odd couple pairing and fast paced dialogue.  If those were the only requirements, this would be a great movie.  However, in order to make a great cop action comedy, you need more than just a run down dirt bag and a motor mouth colleague.  You also need to have decently written dialogue that not only moves the story along but also makes the viewer laugh.  You need memorable one liners.  48 Hours does not have that.  It's basically an hour and a half of Nick Nolte spouting racial slurs at Eddie Murphy.  There are a few instances where Murphy's reactions are well written and acted but these are too few and far between to save the movie.  I will concede that the delivery is done fairly well by both actors.  But the writing is so ham and cheesy that even the best actors wouldn't be able to save it.

Another thing a movie like this needs is great action.  While it may have been good for 1982, the action does not age well into today.  The shootouts are over acted and chases are nothing special.  I did enjoy the fist fight between Nolte and Murphy because it was reminiscent of Hugh Grant vs Colin Firth in Bridget Jones' Diary in the fact that it was two guys who can't fight but attempting it anyway.  Whether this was by design for the characters or just bad choreography is irrelevant.  It did entertain.

To wrap up those shortcomings, the movie is just out and out boring.  The story has no real intrigue or twists.  Without that, one would have to rely on entertaining dialogue or great action.  And as I mentioned, this movie has neither.  Instead, they use a lot of filler like a useless montage of Nolte driving towards the club that Murphy is in while an entire song is played.

I'm glad it was made because it paved the way for one of my favourite subgenres.  But what it spawned is so much better than what it is.  Don't see it.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation Review (Spoiler Alert)

Nobody has been in the gym for years yet the power works.  That pretty much sums up the inconsistencies and nagging little questions that this movie has.  If you can get past those, you may enjoy it.

Many people (especially purists) did not like the first G.I. Joe movie.  And I'm guessing that many will not like this one for the same reasons.  It strays a bit from the canon of the franchise.  But, look at it this way.  If you made a G.I. Joe movie that was true to the campy 80s toy/comic book/cartoon franchise, it would flop completely.  G.I. Joe always had technology and weapons that were just out of reach of the time it was made.  They've actually done a very good job of doing the same thing and bringing it into the 21st century.  They have updated the uniforms, technology, and weapons to fit with the not-too-distant future feel that the original franchise had.  Anyone who says they need to stick to the character-specific uniforms and physically impossible vehicles needs to accept that these are movies, not comic books, toys, or cartoons.  As kids, we were able to accept and even embrace every outrageous aspect of the fantasy military world Hasbro thrust upon us.  But now, we are grown up and part of the disposable income masses.  As grown ups, most of us have left our puritanism behind and demand some sense of believe-ability and realism while still being to accept that it is an unlikely fiction.  When you look at it in that light, the G.I. Joe movies are actually quality updates to the franchise.  They upgraded the technology but kept the over the top cheesiness and camp that made G.I. Joe so enthralling for us as kids.  They've also kept the Snake Eyes vs. Storm Shadow story which was a very compelling aspect of the comics.

This is first, and foremost, an action movie.  Writing, acting, continuity, and story is secondary.  In the action elements of effects, makeup, etc., Retaliation gets an A+.  All of the action sequences are top notch and edited perfectly.  It also turned out to be a good thing to delay it so they could add the 3D.  Not only does a lot of stuff fly around and make you move, it really gave the rest of the movie a depth that was well done.  Sadly, as for the rest of the technical aspects, this movie is actually quite poor.  The film is mainly buildup to the plot and very little actual plot happens.  With the exception of Dwayne Johnson, the acting is quite poor.  Johnson was a great choice for Roadblock.  But the rest of the cast goes from phoning it in to downright hard to watch (RZA - who should never be on screen again).  The overall story seems pretty weak but it is actually something Cobra would have tried so I could actually embrace it.

But, the action outweighs the crappy acting so I give it a see recommendation.  If you don't want spoilers, stop reading.  But now I will address their use of characters.

G.I. Joe is very character driven.  It's a unit made up of very specific and unique soldiers.  I was and am a huge fan of the franchise and, as a result, have my own favourites.  I am disappointed in how the movies have used them.  They have killed off some of the most important characters in the franchise.  Duke, Hawk, and Zartan (especially Zartan) are some vital characters and they have all been killed.  Duke and Hawk are the leaders.  Roadblock, while important, is not a Joe leader.  (But Johnson makes a better leading man than Channing Tatum so I see what they were doing.)  (I also lament that Firefly is gone but that's just because I liked him.  He's not overly important.)  But what is worse is that they declined to use the Baroness and Destro for Cobra and Scarlet for the Joes.  In the overall story of G.I. Joe, these are vital characters that need to be included.  Scarlet has a calming effect on Snake Eyes that Jinx just cannot fulfill.  Destro is Cobra Commander's Starscream in the fact that they have the same goals yet hate each other.  The Baroness is a fantastic right hand for Cobra and they killed off the Commander's other two (Firefly and Zartan) in this one.  If they go with the idiotic Mindbender in the next one I may write a nasty letter (an probably not send it).

So I had to take a step back and realize that this is a film franchise and not a comic book that can go on indefinitely.  As a film franchise, it has a life of one (maybe two) more installments.  Then it may get a reboot a la Spiderman where they can go in a different direction and resurrect all of these characters.  If they keep this franchise as a contained story like that, they have to do something with these characters like kill them off or write them out.  There's only so much screen time to go around and in a franchise where everyone is a compelling star character in his or her own right, some difficult choices have to be made.  It's not like we have one hero with multiple villains.  We have a group of heroes fighting one group of villains and an insatiable demand from the audience to see all of their favourite characters.  The biggest problem is that same audience will also demand some sort of resolution in the story and we can't just leave a character in the background and bring him back 10 issues later when the comic book story allows for it.  So, the characters' shelf life falls dramatically.  Once I saw it as a smaller, finite story and not a video version of the action figures that I could play with over and over with new plots, I was able to accept the death of Zartan (and Firefly).

Jack Reacher Review

Well, where do I begin?  If this is what Lee Child novels are like, I'll stick to my Jack Higgins books.  I can't find any redeeming qualities for this film.  The closest I can get is that Tom Cruise didn't do a terrible job in delivering utterly horrible lines.  It's sad really because the story is actually pretty good with a lot of potential.  A sniper kills people in downtown Pittsburgh and the accused gets them to bring in a former military cop that has the tenacity of a pitbull.  It could have thriller written all over it.

But all of that potential is wasted through the use of very poor writing and extremely poor delivery of said writing.  It's almost as if every other line was written in a half-hearted attempt to be the next cool action movie catch phrase.  And the director then told all of the actors to channel their favourite 1940s-50s melodramatic actor before delivering it.  It was all over the top, wooden delivery that made it difficult to watch.  Add in the fact that it seems that Rosamund Pike was only there for the cleavage factor and it really is laughable.

For the most part, it seemed actually plausible for the situation to occur in real life.  But the hero is some unrealistic phantom super man and the villain was like some James Bond reject.  Given what Bond had for villains and sinister plots in the 80s, you know it's just that bad.

I didn't think Tom Cruise could make an action movie worse than Knight and Day but he did it.  I hope Oblivion is a step up.  Don't see it.