Gravity Review

I'm glad they finally turned Space Oddity into a movie.

Seriously, though.  It's a good thing this movie is only 90 minutes long.  Otherwise I may have blacked out from not breathing.  It is absolutely riveting from the opening shot right until the end credits.  In a way, it reminded me of Buried.  You know, the movie where all it is is Ryan Reynolds in a coffin talking on a phone?  It's like that in the fact that, through the use of excellent acting and a great score, they make you feel like you're there with the characters.  Add in that they could do so much more with camera work and the 3D, and you feel what I can only imagine is close to the same helplessness in the void that Ryan Stone does.  I think it's the 3D that really puts it over the top though.  The movie obviously had to have a lot of CGI in it and it still felt so real.  I guess you can spend a lot on that when you only have two or three on screen actors in the whole thing.

The only beef I have with the film (and it's very minor) is that it beats you over the head with its metaphors and allegory.  It's an obvious tale of persistence and moving on through adversity shown in an extreme case.  There are moments where they move past subtlety and almost say to the audience, "get it?"  But by then, you're so engrossed in the visuals that you don't care.  There are also instances where I'm pretty sure they bent the laws of physics and ignored actual space travel protocols but I can live with that.  I'm no physicist or rocket scientist so I'll defer to their judgement on how far you can take artistic license.

Acting wise, it's very strong.  While it isn't either of their best performance, both Clooney and Bullock are above average.

Definitely see it.  If you suffer from motion sickness, maybe take some Gravol with you.  But don't let it stop you.

The Art of the Steal Review

It's nice to see Canadian cinema making some real strides into the mainstream.  Many of the films that come out of Canada have this artsy vibe to them as if to say that we're either above making a Hollywood style movie or we're just not ready yet.  The Art of the Steal breaks away from that and proves that Canada can make a decent quality movie and make it distinctly Canadian and not one big stereotype of lumberjacks and maple syrup.

I'll start with the story.  It's a fairly basic heist movie that has a lot of the same elements of the Ocean's franchise.  There's a big score, a twist or two, and clever dialogue that keeps it light.  Unfortunately, the writing is a bit inconsistent as there are a few spots where it slows down quite a bit.  But, for the most part, the dialogue is engaging enough for a 90 minute movie.

The movie is also helped out by a very good cast.  Kurt Russell, Jay Baruchel and Matt Dillon are not the biggest stars in Hollywood but they are all competent at what they do.  It shows in this film.  They play off of each other very well and all seemed comfortable in their roles.  Even Baruchel who seemed comfortable playing someone who seemed to always be uncomfortable (which is his forte).  Baruchel steals every scene he's in and keeps the audience laughing throughout.  The same can be said for Jason Jones.  He provides terrific comic relief as the witless Interpol agent.

But what I liked the most was the feel of this movie.  It had a lot of bleak shots which is not surprising seeing as how it takes place in Canada and Detroit in the winter.  Rather than stylize the lives of the criminals and have them be these suave and cool people like Clooney and Pitt in the Ocean's movies, they made them out to be regular people.  While the story is a bit far fetched, it still felt real.

See it.

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.

The Smurfs 2 Review

As we all know, sequels (especially those to kids movies) have a well deserved reputation for being disappointing.  One of the things about the first Smurfs movie that annoyed me was the introduction of a completely unnecessary Smurf for the sole purpose of having a wisecracking Scottish gnome on screen to sell Happy Meal toys.  So when I saw that they were introducing two more new and "sassy" Smurfs for this one, I cringed.  But, being a child of the 80s, I went anyways.  And I'm glad I did.

While Gutsy Smurf was a superfluous combination of Smurfs we already knew, Vexy and Hackus are creations who's existence is central to the plot and even the story of Smurfette.  While I'm not a fan of the drastic changes and additions to the Smurfs, I can accept it if they work it into the story in a meaningful way and they did so here.  But I'm not sure two of them were necessary.  Vexy is important but Hackus was a little too much.  His moronic antics are cute at the start but are over used to the point that you just wish he'd go away (up until one part right close to the end that had me laughing out loud).  I understand why they had him and why he stopped short of being all there mentally. (Gargamel was trying to create an army and only had enough Smurf essence for 1.5 brains and needs to get more. - that isn't a spoiler.  It's the basic premise.)  And the kids were laughing at Hackus throughout and this movie is in their world now, not mine.

Back to the Gutsy thing, I was really glad to see them move all of the "new age" Smurfs to the background and give them moderately humourous one-off jokes while they stuck to the basics of five Smurfs we all loved as kids: Papa, Smurfette, Clumsy, Grouchy, and Vanity.  In doing this, they proved that you can take classic, bare bones elements and still update them through witty dialogue and make a decent movie that will entertain both generations.  These five Smurfs had changed very little but were still able to entertain.  It also helps that they ramped up the bumbling Gargamel and slapstick with Azrael.  That kept me laughing as well.

The movie is nothing too special.  The writing is average.  The human acting is passable.  The effects are very good but nothing innovative.  But the bottom line is that this movie is meant to entertain children.  It isn't like Pixar where they layer them to appeal to all generations.  This is out and out a kids movie and in that, it delivers.  It throws jokes like snowballs and has Chris Farley levels of characters running into things.

If you want a nice little entertaining diversion, see it.

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.

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.

Mary Poppins Review

I think I'm one of the few people in the developed world who had never seen this movie.  So when it was offered on the big screen, I figured why not go see it.  I found out quickly that, even though I had never seen it, Mary Poppins obviously influenced my life significantly because I knew pretty much all of the songs.  That, in itself should reveal the quality of this film.

The movie, itself, is pretty stripped down.  There isn't much to it other than the song and dance numbers.  There is actually very little in the way of a plot or story or even character development.  The purpose is really to entertain (and to a lesser extent, tell a story) through song and dance and it does that very well.  It is a fantasy movie with a magic nanny and chimney sweep and a retired admiral firing a cannon from his roof twice a day, so it needs more than just basic special effects, sets and makeup to be done well.  Given that it was released almost fifty years ago, the effects and makeup are fantastic.

Finally, the best parts of the film are the performances from Dick van Dyke and Julie Andrews.  Both were more than solid and very convincing of the characters.  I have to give a stronger nod to van Dyke simply because his character actually has more significance to the movie than Andrews'.  Being a story about a magic nanny turning a family upside down should have more of a focus on the dynamic and friction between the head of the household and the nanny.  But there is actually very little of that other than the implied progression of the relationship.  But it doesn't really matter because, as I said, it's all basically about the song and dance.

See it.  The bottom line is that it is downright entertaining and fun.  Except for the song Feed the Birds.  The movie grinds to a screeching halt during that one.

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.

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.

42 Review

It's no secret that I don't like Harrison Ford.  He's one of the most over rated actors in Hollywood.  Going into this one, you got the feeling that his portrayal of Branch Rickey as a crusader for human rights was supposed to be an Oscar bid.  If it was, he failed miserably.  Everything about the character is overplayed.  The gravelly voice and forced delivery comes off so cheesy as to be completely unbelievable.

And that's a shame because, almost everything else about this movie is actually very good.  The rest of the acting performances are quite strong (with the exception of the kids but they're too young to be great actors).  I was especially impressed with Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson.  Everything about his performance was convincing.  it would have been easy to try and make the character bigger than the movie given the subject matter. but it was restrained just enough to be able to tell the story well.  I also like John C McGinley as the radio announcer.  His old-timey sayings and voice gave the right feel to baseball scenes that were well shot and thought out.  it really felt like I was watching a game from 70 years ago.

Finally, I liked that the movie didn't think it was bigger than it actually was.  In an era of ultra political correctness, it is easy to try and make a story like this bigger than it really is.  Don't get me wrong.  What Jackie Robinson did was groundbreaking and unbelievably important for human rights and the game of baseball.  I don't want to take away from that.  But in movies like this, they often put the characters on these soap boxes and have them make these grand speeches about how what they are doing is so important.  In 42. they addressed the overall good of what they were doing without being overly preachy.  It stayed grounded in a baseball movie and balanced it very well.

See it.  Ford is difficult to watch but the rest is done just fine.

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 The Giant Slayer Review

I now know why this wasn't just called Jack and the Beanstalk. It's actually quite a bit more than the original fairy tale. And, if you're going to bastardize a beloved children's tale, you might as well do it right. And they did. I wasn't expecting much and it does start out fairly slow. But when it picks up, it takes off and doesn't let go. Once the beanstalk grows, the film moves fast, has some really good action and breaks some conventional adventure movie rules along the way (timing of obvious deaths, changes to a crisis, etc.) I like that they were willing to take those risks. I also like that they didn't try to make the movie seem too real. Part of that may be due to limitations in CGI technology. But some of it had to be an intentional effort to keep it a fairy tale. Ewan McGregor is the best example of this. His line delivery (tally ho) really exemplifies the "knight in shining armour" character that only exists in fairy tales.

I was a bit disappointed with some of the CGI. The beanstalks were good and the whole set of the different lands is created well. But the giants were created poorly. I know it would have taken a lot of money but, rather than trying to give each one such a unique look, they could have commoditized them a bit and left out things like the Don King hair on the one. There could have been a better balance between individualism and quality.

Overall, it's quite tight and has a really cool ending.  The battles and fights are engaging and mesmerizing. So see it. There's just a couple of questions I have though. Why is Fumm Irish? Was Flava Flav the inspiration for the giant's second head? And why was the medieval army general straight out of a WWI anti-Kaiser propaganda poster?  I guess we'll never know...

Oz, the Great and Powerful Review

I saw the teaser poster back in the day and knew that I needed to see this movie.  With today's CGI technology, the Oz franchise is something that should definitely be revived.  Yes, the original is a classic and will always be so.  But the books depict this absolutely fantastic world that was previously unfilmable.  Now we can do it right and I'm glad to see that Hollywood realizes this.

I also like that they did not start by just remaking the Wizard of Oz.  A badly needed background is being built.  For the most part, it is quite strong.  I do not know how close this is to the actual story in the books as I have not read all of them and those that I did were so long ago that I have forgotten.  But there is definitely a foreshadowing of future events and crises throughout this film.  Some may say that it is an obvious setup for a sequel.  To that, I say, "what's the problem?"  There are numerous Oz books and the whole world is much more than Dorothy and her entourage.  A multi-volume film franchise is just what it needs.

That being said, just how does the first installment rate as a movie?  With regards to the story, I already said that I thought it was decent.  I like how they explained the wizard's arrival in Oz and his character flaws which are never fully explained in the old movie.  There was also always an underlying tension with the witches that they do a decent job of explaining.  Oz purists may or may not like it but I think it should satisfy most average film goers who are familiar with the original film.

Visually, it is pretty stunning.  Most of the sets and costumes look a bit plastic but this is a magical land that is far different from our own.  I like the use of black and white and a 4:3 aspect ratio for the Kansas scenes.  But I did find that they seemed a bit plastic and surreal as well which took away from the transition to Oz.

Finally, I was quite disappointed in the acting.  None of the star-studded cast gave a decent performance.  Oddly enough, the best was Michelle Williams who I just have a hard time watching at the best of times.  It was almost as if they all tried to tie it into the same style as the original film.  But, back then, that was just how people acted on screen.  We don't need that now and the camp factor actually makes it more difficult to watch.  I was originally happy to see James Franco cast as the wizard.  He proved with 127 hours that he has some range.  But his performance here was pretty bad.  Because of the light-hearted nature of the film, there is more comedy to it and his goofy grins and delivery went too close to his stoner from Pineapple Express.  It just didn't fit this movie and he turned out to be the wrong choice.  I do have to give a nod to Zach Braff's voiceover work though.  The combination of his inflection and the CGI for the winged monkey were spot on.

Because of the strong story and great visuals, I can forgive the substandard acting.  It isn't great, but it is good.  See it.

A Good Day to Die Hard Review

I've come to expect a certain standard from a Die Hard movie.  There are some elements that just need to be incorporated.  There's the obligatory yippee-ki-yay catchphrase (which does appear).  John McClane must be thrust into an extraordinarily violent situation (which he is).  McClane needs to seem non-chalant about the whole situation while still being aware of the fact that he could die (which he is). Why, then, did I come away from this movie disappointed?  Because McClane was more sad than badass throughout the whole thing.

The basic premise is that McClane goes to Moscow to be with his son, Jack, who is in a lot of trouble with Russian law enforcement.  Violent antics ensue and many things are not as they appear - just like all of the other Die Hard movies.  The problem is that it does not focus on McClane being the only one who can save the situation.  Instead, McClane forces himself into helping Jack and is almost like Abe Simpson in being largely a nuisance to the situation.  Even though he does a few things that are a help along the way (stealing car keys and bribing hotel employees), they are largely minor and you wind up feeling that Jack would be better off without him being there.  In this one, he's become a sideshow that is holding on to past glory.  It's something that just did not have to happen.

But what bugs me the most about the McClane character is the desperation to give him the "this s**t can't happen to me again" and devil may care attitude.  The best example of this is that he is in Moscow for one reason: to help his son and bring him home.  But throughout the movie, whenever his life is in danger he screams, "I'm on vacation!"  His reason for being in Russia is far from a vacation.  But the writer just badly wanted a new little quirky catchphrase that could be used and it became laughable.

Another problem is the filming.  All of the action has that crappy, shaky camera work that is supposed to make it more realistic but just winds up being nauseating to watch.  Then, they added in hard zooms and panning that actually made the action difficult to watch.  It's sad because the action is quite good and well choreographed.  It's over the top and unrealistic which is what we want when we go to a Die Hard movie.  And they completely ruined it.

I'm not upset for having seen it.  But I'm glad I redeemed Scene points to do so.  I'll probably buy it on Blu-Ray simply because it's a Die Hard movie and I'm a fan of the franchise.  But I can't recommend it.  Don't see it.