A young boy watches his mother die of cancer in front of him when he is about eleven. Then, he gets pulled into a hovering spaceship and the rest of the movie is a fun, humorous, imaginative (Star Wars/new Star Trek) ride through deep space. If this sounds like two different movies, that is because one of the movie's strengths is that it combines emotion and the "out there" space elements flawlessly. Too much humor and the movie about the kid from the 80's who grows up in space and hangs out with the talking raccoon and his "houseplant/muscle" will seem silly. Too much seriousness and it would also seem silly because of the talking raccoon and humanoid tree person. This well-written movie balances all that really well. Yes, you don't have to know anything about these characters before you go. I have seen all the Marvel/Avengers movies, but I never read GOTG comic books, so I went into this movie blind myself, despite being a Marvel fan. AND...I am also a fan of "old-school" science fiction from the 50's and 60's, which this movie nods to considerably.
You have have Peter Quill (played by Chris Pratt), the adult version of the above-mentioned kid who got pulled into a spaceship after his mother dies. He is a Han Solo type, a criminal with more quippy, contemporary references (well, 80's...kids still know some of that stuff, right?) than Han Solo because he comes from Earth. Yes, he is in a galaxy far, far away, but his cassette tape walkman and the 70's-80's music that fills the soundtrack (that his mother gave him) will remind you that homeboy is one of us. He is a smuggler-type with a high-tech mask and a blaster who calls himself Star-Lord (because this is a "superhero" movie, kinda...and someone can't be just Peter Quill). When his latest score (an orb that he wants to sell to a Collector), puts him in hot water with some baddies, including the Kree Empire, a villian named Ronan and Thanos (the purple dude from the closing credits of 'The Avengers'), he ends up in a space station/jail where he meets the green-skinned, kick-butt female Gamora (Thanos' estranged daughter) and Rocket (played by Bradley Cooper), a genetically modified raccoon who is basically Dirty Harry in a raccoon's body (in space). Rocket and Peter are hilarious together, as is Rocket's tree creature friend Groot (Vin Diesel's surprisingly LEAST wooden performance), who can only say "I am Groot" in varying pitches, depending on his mood/sentiment. They also meet Drax an alien musclehead, who has a grudge against Ronan. Between wanting money for the mysterious orb and revenge against Ronan, the five form a team and escape from prison (in a brilliant scene) to have space adventures. Gamora is a great character, played by a great actress (Zoe Saldana) and she and Peter get close. Rocket and Groot (who could be "just" the comic relief) make you feel for them and laugh with them (and care about them when they fight at the end). Every character is well-fleshed out, even if their backstories are only quickly explained (kind of like the Avengers, but those characters had their own movies). Still, very well-done.
Marvel comic book fans will be happy to learn that this orb contains the second "Infinity stone" that we have seen in a Marvel movie. Marvel hipsters already know that the round thing in Loki's staff in 'The Avengers' is the first one and there are five and Thanos wants them. Speaking of Marvel hipsters, stay for the after-credits scene at the end. The most "Marvel hipster" reference I have ever seen in one of these things...and funny if you get it.
4 Infinity Stones out of 5.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' REVIEW
In 2011, 20th Century Fox rebooted the 'Planet of the Apes' franchise, pretending the Tim Burton/Marky Mark one didn't happen and giving us a surprisingly heartfely movie about the evils of animal testing. 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' succeeded as a sci-fi movie partially because of the realism of the computer generated apes, but also because of the good story, the heart and the fact that it focused appropriately on the non-human characters. Yes, now that non-human characters can be THAT realistic-looking, we can focus the story on them. E.T. was more about Elliot, but that was because it was 1982 and E.T. was a pupper. As was Yoda, in a movie that was appropriately about Luke. But in a world where the Transformers can be that realistic, those movies should not be the Shia LeBuff (sp?) or Marky Mark show. 'Rise' succeeded by picking up speed when the story shifted over to Caesar about the time he got trapped in that ape sanctuary. And that's how it should have been. It succeeded by doing a more realistic version of everyone's favorite part of the 4th Ape movie of the old series, the ape slave riot (oh, yeah!) from 1972's 'Conquest of the Planet of the Apes'. And, it succeeded in taking a franchise that began with Charlton Heston landing on a planet full of apes who spoke with British accents and grounding it in a heartfelt reality where a scientist was trying to cure his father's Alzheimers. The old Apes movies never explained why the Apes from the future could talk. 'Rise' did.
Now we have 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes', taking place in a world where the virus at the end of the last movie has wiped out a lot of the human race and the survivors in San Francisco really don't know if there are any other survivors out there. They concoct a plan to reroute power from a nearby dam so that they can communicate with the outside world and see who else is out there. True to what was cool about 'Rise', 'Dawn' starts out by showing us what is going on with the apes, who have their own civilization in the woods that they ran into at the end of the last film. This wooded area is where the dam is and when the humans trespass on ape territory, a shaky human shoots one of the apes. This escalates into a conflict that Caesar is eager to avoid, but Koba, the scarred ape from the lab in the last film, wants. He is embittered about the animal testing that he suffered (and was the theme of the last film) and he wants revenge. When Caesar, whose compassion comes from the fact that he was raised by a human, reluctantly allows the humans to work on the dam, Koba plots to overthrow Caesar to push the humans and the apes into a war. Basically, the movie is about Caesar and one of the less-interesting human characters trying to protect their respective families. They grow to respect each other as a result, only to have mistrust be sown by Koba.
Koba ended up being my favorite character in the film. The way he cleverly manipulates the other characters makes for some great drama and some plot twists as well. He's basically the ape Joker, complete with twisted grin. The 'apocalyptic' premise may seem a little cliche, but it was well done and the story was not predictable. I like sequels that are quite a bit different from the previous and this one certainly qualifies in that 'Empire Strikes Back' kind of way.
Great CGI creatures, a story that does take a few unexpected twists and a subtle nod to the music from the 1968 original makes 'Dawn' a darker, quite different and more dramatic film than 'Rise'. 'Cloverfield' director Matt Reeves really thought outside the box by making this one so much different, focusing the story equally on the apes and having a good chunk of the dialogue be subtitles from the apes doing sign language. There is more of that than the last film and it is interesting. Yes, the apes do their grunting talk ("Caesar...is...home!"), but they mostly do it while around humans (and they don't speak in British accents). Amongst themselves, they sign. Again, quite grounded.
I give this movie 3 Statue of Libertys out of 5.
Now we have 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes', taking place in a world where the virus at the end of the last movie has wiped out a lot of the human race and the survivors in San Francisco really don't know if there are any other survivors out there. They concoct a plan to reroute power from a nearby dam so that they can communicate with the outside world and see who else is out there. True to what was cool about 'Rise', 'Dawn' starts out by showing us what is going on with the apes, who have their own civilization in the woods that they ran into at the end of the last film. This wooded area is where the dam is and when the humans trespass on ape territory, a shaky human shoots one of the apes. This escalates into a conflict that Caesar is eager to avoid, but Koba, the scarred ape from the lab in the last film, wants. He is embittered about the animal testing that he suffered (and was the theme of the last film) and he wants revenge. When Caesar, whose compassion comes from the fact that he was raised by a human, reluctantly allows the humans to work on the dam, Koba plots to overthrow Caesar to push the humans and the apes into a war. Basically, the movie is about Caesar and one of the less-interesting human characters trying to protect their respective families. They grow to respect each other as a result, only to have mistrust be sown by Koba.
Koba ended up being my favorite character in the film. The way he cleverly manipulates the other characters makes for some great drama and some plot twists as well. He's basically the ape Joker, complete with twisted grin. The 'apocalyptic' premise may seem a little cliche, but it was well done and the story was not predictable. I like sequels that are quite a bit different from the previous and this one certainly qualifies in that 'Empire Strikes Back' kind of way.
Great CGI creatures, a story that does take a few unexpected twists and a subtle nod to the music from the 1968 original makes 'Dawn' a darker, quite different and more dramatic film than 'Rise'. 'Cloverfield' director Matt Reeves really thought outside the box by making this one so much different, focusing the story equally on the apes and having a good chunk of the dialogue be subtitles from the apes doing sign language. There is more of that than the last film and it is interesting. Yes, the apes do their grunting talk ("Caesar...is...home!"), but they mostly do it while around humans (and they don't speak in British accents). Amongst themselves, they sign. Again, quite grounded.
I give this movie 3 Statue of Libertys out of 5.
Sunday, June 8, 2014
'Edge of Tommorrow' REVIEW
Tom Cruise plays an advertising executive who was supposed to film an attack for the Army. It's the future and humans are fighting these weird, tentacled aliens called Mimics. The General orders him to fight with the team. He makes it clear that he doesn't do that. He has never been a soldier. He tries to escape obeying this order and is knocked out by the General's men. He wakes up on an Army base where he is forced to fight, He is strapped to a mechanized battle suit and put on a plane. He dies over and over again, always waking up for the next "try" on a pile of duffel bags, where the soldiers left him the first time.
You've probably seen the trailers and know that Tom Cruise keeps dying and re-living the same day over and over again (ala Groundhog Day). I must say that one of things that I liked about this movie is that the trailers spoiled very little and some of the more interesting things were still in tact. I don't even want to tell you why Tom Cruise is the one who can re-live the same day over and over again, but it is explained and there is a science fiction explanation for it, unlike Groundhog Day where Bill Murray had to re-live the day until Andie MacDowell slept with him...or whatever...and no one explained why he had to do this. Remember those scenes where Bill Murray kept trying to kill himself over and over (my personal favorite being when he put the toaster in the bathtub)? Well, there is some humor like that where Emily Blunt, who knows about Tom Cruise's time warp ability (for a reason that I won't spoil) realizes that they failed at their mission and need to try again, so she shoots Tom Cruise in the head. (off-camera...no gore) Tom Cruise makes alot of weird faces in the movie like he always does when he acts, so it's okay to laugh at him dying over and over again.
Good plot. They explore the idea of reliving the same day over and over again very well until the end where they have to focus on killing the main alien so the war and movie will be over. Kind of like "In Time" where they explore the idea of time being currency until it turned into a heist movie. Sort of like that, but still well-done. The chemistry between Cruise and Blunt is very good, so you will care about them during the action scenes. Way better than 'Oblivion', but it won't make you forget 'Minority Report'.
3.5 Risky Businesses out of 5.
Yes, 'Edge of Tommorrow' was the theme song for 'Saved by the Bell: The College Years', so don't bother pointing that out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9J76R3evAE
You've probably seen the trailers and know that Tom Cruise keeps dying and re-living the same day over and over again (ala Groundhog Day). I must say that one of things that I liked about this movie is that the trailers spoiled very little and some of the more interesting things were still in tact. I don't even want to tell you why Tom Cruise is the one who can re-live the same day over and over again, but it is explained and there is a science fiction explanation for it, unlike Groundhog Day where Bill Murray had to re-live the day until Andie MacDowell slept with him...or whatever...and no one explained why he had to do this. Remember those scenes where Bill Murray kept trying to kill himself over and over (my personal favorite being when he put the toaster in the bathtub)? Well, there is some humor like that where Emily Blunt, who knows about Tom Cruise's time warp ability (for a reason that I won't spoil) realizes that they failed at their mission and need to try again, so she shoots Tom Cruise in the head. (off-camera...no gore) Tom Cruise makes alot of weird faces in the movie like he always does when he acts, so it's okay to laugh at him dying over and over again.
Good plot. They explore the idea of reliving the same day over and over again very well until the end where they have to focus on killing the main alien so the war and movie will be over. Kind of like "In Time" where they explore the idea of time being currency until it turned into a heist movie. Sort of like that, but still well-done. The chemistry between Cruise and Blunt is very good, so you will care about them during the action scenes. Way better than 'Oblivion', but it won't make you forget 'Minority Report'.
3.5 Risky Businesses out of 5.
Yes, 'Edge of Tommorrow' was the theme song for 'Saved by the Bell: The College Years', so don't bother pointing that out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9J76R3evAE
'X-Men: Days of Future Past' REVIEW
In 2000, the first 'X-Men' movie was directed by a guy known for award-winning dramas (Bryan Singer). Mind you, this was three years after 1997's 'Batman and Robin', arguably the worst mainstream superhero movie ever made (Steel, Supergirl, Catwoman and Elektra were all spin-offs) and so the superhero movie genre needed a boost. Today, superhero movies are such a "thing" that a few bad ones can come out and people still realize that the next one might be cool. But back then, the Batman franchise was dead. No one had made a Superman movie in years and Marvel wasn't doing what they are today (through any studio or their own), so the first 'X-Men', with good actors, where the science fiction elements were taken seriously, was quite a breakthrough 14 years ago.
Of course, Bryan Singer directed the first X-Men and the brilliant sequel X2 before killing two franchises by directing 'Superman Returns' and letting Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner direct the 3rd X-Men, killing off a number of main characters, thinking it was going to be the last one and "curing" others of their powers. Yes, "death" in a sci-fi movie is reversible through cloning or time travel (as this movie proves) or transferring your consciousness into your twin brothers' body, but the thing that fans hated the most about the third one is the way the Phoenix storyline was handled. Instead of being an entity from space like in the comics, the Phoenix was a part of Jean's brain that Professor X tried to steal off and it got mad. Personally, I liked the "cure for mutation" storyline from X3, but they made the Phoenix lame.
So, now, the original director, the one that should have directed X3, is back. We have most of the original X-Men back in their roles and their younger versions from 'X-Men: First Class' in a time travelling X-Men story, one of the most acclaimed from the comic books 'Days of Future Past'. Since it's been a few years since X3, the actors look a little older, so seeing them in a futuristic landscape where everything has been wiped out by mutant-hunting Sentinel robots makes sense. Think the future flashbacks from 'Terminator' with cooler robots. The X-Men, including a few new characters you might remember from the comics or 1990's cartoon (Bishop has a small, but cool role) are at war with the Sentinels. Kitty Pryde has figured out a way to send people's consciousness back in time to their younger body, but she can only send people back a few days or a week at a time. She has been doing this to warn the X-Men's past selves about the Sentinels whenever they do attack. The Sentinels kill a bunch of X-Men, she sends someone back a few days and they can move somewhere else. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. (Iceman has a pretty cool "death" that is erased by time travel.)
Thing is, sending someone's mind back through time takes a toll on the body, which is why Kitty only does it a week at a time. Buuut, what if someone's body could heal super fast? Enter everyone's favorite X-Men, whether you think it's stupid that he's always the star when it's supposed to be a team effort or not, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the one who can go back in time to the one event that started this dark future. 50 years in the past. 1973. Futire Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and future Magneto (Ian McKellen) are friends in the future and they tell Wolverine that he must get them to unite in a time where they couldn't have been further apart. This includes convincing a drugged-out 1970's Professor X that he is from the future, freeing Magneto from a prison many feet under the Pentagon (without Charles' powers, because he's taken a drug that allows him to walk again, but removes his mind powers) AND...stopping young Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the man who built the Sentinels in the first place. Not only does seeing a mutant kill a public figure make normal people hate mutants even more (making the President employ the Sentinels), but when Mystique is captured, her shape-shifting DNA is used on future upgrades, making the Sentinels deadlier in the future. All the actors are great in their roles. And personally, I felt that the one thing that X3 did right was humanizing Charles Xavier by giving him an "edge", instead of him "just" being the wise mentor. This movie certainly does that with the young version (James McAvoy) by showing him at a low point in his life.
Ever since it was announced that Bryan Singer would be directing 'Days of Future Past', there was alot of fan talk online about whether he would acknowledge X3, which he did not direct, nor did fans like. Well, while this movie can be enjoyed by someone who has never seen an X-Men film before, but who enjoys dark sci-fi, it is also kind of like that speech in the 2009 Star Trek reboot on the bridge of the Enterprise where they talk about an alternate reality. Basically, the director's way of explaining why he changed a bunch of stuff. Well, without spoiling too much, this movie is like that. A combination of Bryan Singer trying to fix the effects of X3...or maybe just his own feelings about starting over and doing better. Either way, I would just watch this movie as a stand alone film and not try to tie in in to lore too much, but it does reboot somewhat.
Much has been made too about how Professor X being alive after being killed in X3 isn't really explained. I assume that those reviews did not watch the after-credits scene from X3, which plays off an earlier scene and in which Professor X has transferred his consciousness into another body with his powers. Comic book fans know that the other guy was his twin brother, so, yeah...Patrick Stewart is in this movie and he's great as always even though he got vaporized by lame Phoenix n X3. And ignore those goofy pictures of Quicksilver that you saw in EW magazine. His character and his small role is awesome, he helps to free Magneto from prison, steals the scenes he is in and yes, they do acknowledge (but do not elaborate on) "where he comes from". Oh, and we see him hugging his little sister at the end, so, um, yeah Scarlet Witch is in this movie too, but not really. (More on her when Avengers 2 comes out) Anyway, lots of nods to previous versions of the X-Men for longtime fans.
Bottom line, 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is a great time travel movie with alot of great twists and turns along the way. I love the way they tied everything in to real history the way "First Class" talked about the Cuban Missile crisis and JFK. In this movie, we see mutants fighting in Vietnam, Richard Nixon is a character and we learn which ex-President (X-President) was really a mutant. All in all, a great movie with an after-credits scene that you will have to explain to non-comic book fans, but that makes you psyched for the (Bryan Singer's) next X-Men film. 4.5 Sentinels out of 5.
PARENTS GUIDE: Professor X repeats the line that Wolverine said to him during his cameo in 'X-Men: First Class'. So, yeah, one F-bomb that this movie could have done without. Just sayin'.
Of course, Bryan Singer directed the first X-Men and the brilliant sequel X2 before killing two franchises by directing 'Superman Returns' and letting Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner direct the 3rd X-Men, killing off a number of main characters, thinking it was going to be the last one and "curing" others of their powers. Yes, "death" in a sci-fi movie is reversible through cloning or time travel (as this movie proves) or transferring your consciousness into your twin brothers' body, but the thing that fans hated the most about the third one is the way the Phoenix storyline was handled. Instead of being an entity from space like in the comics, the Phoenix was a part of Jean's brain that Professor X tried to steal off and it got mad. Personally, I liked the "cure for mutation" storyline from X3, but they made the Phoenix lame.
So, now, the original director, the one that should have directed X3, is back. We have most of the original X-Men back in their roles and their younger versions from 'X-Men: First Class' in a time travelling X-Men story, one of the most acclaimed from the comic books 'Days of Future Past'. Since it's been a few years since X3, the actors look a little older, so seeing them in a futuristic landscape where everything has been wiped out by mutant-hunting Sentinel robots makes sense. Think the future flashbacks from 'Terminator' with cooler robots. The X-Men, including a few new characters you might remember from the comics or 1990's cartoon (Bishop has a small, but cool role) are at war with the Sentinels. Kitty Pryde has figured out a way to send people's consciousness back in time to their younger body, but she can only send people back a few days or a week at a time. She has been doing this to warn the X-Men's past selves about the Sentinels whenever they do attack. The Sentinels kill a bunch of X-Men, she sends someone back a few days and they can move somewhere else. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. (Iceman has a pretty cool "death" that is erased by time travel.)
Thing is, sending someone's mind back through time takes a toll on the body, which is why Kitty only does it a week at a time. Buuut, what if someone's body could heal super fast? Enter everyone's favorite X-Men, whether you think it's stupid that he's always the star when it's supposed to be a team effort or not, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the one who can go back in time to the one event that started this dark future. 50 years in the past. 1973. Futire Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and future Magneto (Ian McKellen) are friends in the future and they tell Wolverine that he must get them to unite in a time where they couldn't have been further apart. This includes convincing a drugged-out 1970's Professor X that he is from the future, freeing Magneto from a prison many feet under the Pentagon (without Charles' powers, because he's taken a drug that allows him to walk again, but removes his mind powers) AND...stopping young Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the man who built the Sentinels in the first place. Not only does seeing a mutant kill a public figure make normal people hate mutants even more (making the President employ the Sentinels), but when Mystique is captured, her shape-shifting DNA is used on future upgrades, making the Sentinels deadlier in the future. All the actors are great in their roles. And personally, I felt that the one thing that X3 did right was humanizing Charles Xavier by giving him an "edge", instead of him "just" being the wise mentor. This movie certainly does that with the young version (James McAvoy) by showing him at a low point in his life.
Ever since it was announced that Bryan Singer would be directing 'Days of Future Past', there was alot of fan talk online about whether he would acknowledge X3, which he did not direct, nor did fans like. Well, while this movie can be enjoyed by someone who has never seen an X-Men film before, but who enjoys dark sci-fi, it is also kind of like that speech in the 2009 Star Trek reboot on the bridge of the Enterprise where they talk about an alternate reality. Basically, the director's way of explaining why he changed a bunch of stuff. Well, without spoiling too much, this movie is like that. A combination of Bryan Singer trying to fix the effects of X3...or maybe just his own feelings about starting over and doing better. Either way, I would just watch this movie as a stand alone film and not try to tie in in to lore too much, but it does reboot somewhat.
Much has been made too about how Professor X being alive after being killed in X3 isn't really explained. I assume that those reviews did not watch the after-credits scene from X3, which plays off an earlier scene and in which Professor X has transferred his consciousness into another body with his powers. Comic book fans know that the other guy was his twin brother, so, yeah...Patrick Stewart is in this movie and he's great as always even though he got vaporized by lame Phoenix n X3. And ignore those goofy pictures of Quicksilver that you saw in EW magazine. His character and his small role is awesome, he helps to free Magneto from prison, steals the scenes he is in and yes, they do acknowledge (but do not elaborate on) "where he comes from". Oh, and we see him hugging his little sister at the end, so, um, yeah Scarlet Witch is in this movie too, but not really. (More on her when Avengers 2 comes out) Anyway, lots of nods to previous versions of the X-Men for longtime fans.
Bottom line, 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is a great time travel movie with alot of great twists and turns along the way. I love the way they tied everything in to real history the way "First Class" talked about the Cuban Missile crisis and JFK. In this movie, we see mutants fighting in Vietnam, Richard Nixon is a character and we learn which ex-President (X-President) was really a mutant. All in all, a great movie with an after-credits scene that you will have to explain to non-comic book fans, but that makes you psyched for the (Bryan Singer's) next X-Men film. 4.5 Sentinels out of 5.
PARENTS GUIDE: Professor X repeats the line that Wolverine said to him during his cameo in 'X-Men: First Class'. So, yeah, one F-bomb that this movie could have done without. Just sayin'.
'Godzilla' (2014) REVIEW
In 1954, the original Godzila movie was about the bad effects of radiation. Made 9 years after the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII, it had a very serious tone. Future follow-ups would be campy and less serious, featuring WWE-style grudge matches between Godzilla and another monster (Mothra, Rodan, Mechagodzilla etc.). They had camp value, but few (if any) of the sequels captured the serious tone of the original.
The new Godzilla successfully combines the serious tone of the original with the 'wow' factor of having Godzilla fight another monster. In some of the Japanese Godzilla movies, Godzilla would destroy Tokyo and in others, another monster would destroy Tokyo and Godzilla would save it. This is one of the latter, where Godzilla is the hero. Unlike the 1998 Matthew Broderick American reboot, which I call 'Ferris Bueler vs. Godzilla', the human characters are interesting, so that the story can build up to when Godzilla or the other monster makes his entrance. And a great entrance the King of Monsters makes.
Bryan Cranston plays a scientist who loses his wife during an accident in a nuclear power plant that they both worked at. Grief-stricken, years later, he is obsessively looking into the events of that day, particularly an EMP-like energy that was detected that fateful day that he could not pinpoint what it was. His obsessive behavior worries his soldier son (Aaron-Taylor Johnson). When Dr. Widower (not his real name) detects it again, he discovers, not Godzilla, but a grasshopper-like monster called MUTO. His name, an acronym for Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism, is a touch of the fun science-y stuff that made the best old-school Godzilla movies great, but it's not as ridiculous as the explanations in some of the campier films, which, to be fair, were translated from Japanese. And we have an Asian scientist, played by the fake R'as Al Ghul from Batman Begins (Ken Watanabe) who pronounces Godzilla the right way. "Gojira!"
But the soldier son is the main (human) character. He is involved with finding out what is happening and stopping part of the larger threat. We see his relationship with his wife (not his sister, that's a movie for next year) played by Michelle Tanner's real-life sister Elizabeth Olsen and long for soldier boy to survive so that they can be together again. ('Avengers' fans will get the sister joke.) I disagree with reviews that said that the human characters were boring, but I agree with those same people that the fights between Godzilla and MUTO shouldhave been longer. It might have been a budget thing, but the monster vs. monster battles provide the epic scale and just the right touch of humor. The awesome entrance that G-zilla makes (and one other moment) caused the theatre audience that I was sitting with to applaud. I don't applaud at movies, but it was quite moving.
So, a story that was interesting enough to build up to when you actually see the monsters. Great fight sequences that don't quite hit you in the face the way 'Pacific Rim' did. And a nice touch of elements that made the old Godzilla movies great, including a scene where the soldier and Godzilla give each other knowing glances and sort of "bond" after they save each others lives. Again, not as corny as him winking at Japanese children, but moving and fun nonetheless.
I give this movie 4 roars out of 5.
The new Godzilla successfully combines the serious tone of the original with the 'wow' factor of having Godzilla fight another monster. In some of the Japanese Godzilla movies, Godzilla would destroy Tokyo and in others, another monster would destroy Tokyo and Godzilla would save it. This is one of the latter, where Godzilla is the hero. Unlike the 1998 Matthew Broderick American reboot, which I call 'Ferris Bueler vs. Godzilla', the human characters are interesting, so that the story can build up to when Godzilla or the other monster makes his entrance. And a great entrance the King of Monsters makes.
Bryan Cranston plays a scientist who loses his wife during an accident in a nuclear power plant that they both worked at. Grief-stricken, years later, he is obsessively looking into the events of that day, particularly an EMP-like energy that was detected that fateful day that he could not pinpoint what it was. His obsessive behavior worries his soldier son (Aaron-Taylor Johnson). When Dr. Widower (not his real name) detects it again, he discovers, not Godzilla, but a grasshopper-like monster called MUTO. His name, an acronym for Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism, is a touch of the fun science-y stuff that made the best old-school Godzilla movies great, but it's not as ridiculous as the explanations in some of the campier films, which, to be fair, were translated from Japanese. And we have an Asian scientist, played by the fake R'as Al Ghul from Batman Begins (Ken Watanabe) who pronounces Godzilla the right way. "Gojira!"
But the soldier son is the main (human) character. He is involved with finding out what is happening and stopping part of the larger threat. We see his relationship with his wife (not his sister, that's a movie for next year) played by Michelle Tanner's real-life sister Elizabeth Olsen and long for soldier boy to survive so that they can be together again. ('Avengers' fans will get the sister joke.) I disagree with reviews that said that the human characters were boring, but I agree with those same people that the fights between Godzilla and MUTO shouldhave been longer. It might have been a budget thing, but the monster vs. monster battles provide the epic scale and just the right touch of humor. The awesome entrance that G-zilla makes (and one other moment) caused the theatre audience that I was sitting with to applaud. I don't applaud at movies, but it was quite moving.
So, a story that was interesting enough to build up to when you actually see the monsters. Great fight sequences that don't quite hit you in the face the way 'Pacific Rim' did. And a nice touch of elements that made the old Godzilla movies great, including a scene where the soldier and Godzilla give each other knowing glances and sort of "bond" after they save each others lives. Again, not as corny as him winking at Japanese children, but moving and fun nonetheless.
I give this movie 4 roars out of 5.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
'Amazing Spider-Man 2' movie review
Andrew Garfield is a beter Peter Parker than Tobey Macguire just based off the fact that he doesn't make a laughable face when he is crying in a scene. Watch the bridge scene of the forgettable 'Spider-Man 3' for the worst example of this. That being said, I agree with many of the other reviews that 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2's' flaws come from Sony's attempt to make a multi-franchise universe like 'The Avengers' when they only own the rights to ONE hero (and his villians and side characters). They are going to make movies centered on the villians, which is not necessarily a bad idea. They make gangster movies, centered around characters who would be villians in a Dick Tracy or other cop movie. So, sort of like a comic book 'The Godfather'. That being said, 'Iron Man 2' suffered greatly from trying to set up "other stuff" at the expense of its own movie and 'Spider-Man 3' suffered by cramming too many villians into one film. This movie is WAY better than those two films, but has similar flaws.
The opening scene shows us Peter's father running away and leaving Peter with Aunt May just like the first movie, but gives us more information on what he was working on. Then, we have a great "opening" action scene where Spidey is trying to take down the Russian gangster who later becomes the Rhino, despite the fact that Peter/Spidey is late for his high school graduation. This scene is very exciting. It has a lot of humor and is fun to watch. Paul Giamatti is a great actor. Buuuut, the Rhino is only shown at the beginning of the movie and at the end. Two very cool scenes. Very funny and they both have a point, buuuut, Rhino should not have been in trailer based on the small amount of screen time he gets. Yes, they are setting up the "bad guy" movies, which is why they gave a great actor such a small part, but don't expect too much Rhino but DO expect to enjoy the Rhino you get.
Real-life couple Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry as Peter and Gwen. Peter breaks up with Gwen early on in the film, because whenever he is fighting crime as Spider-Man, he sees Gwen's father, who died in the first movie after making him promise that he would stay away from Gwen to protect her from his enemies. But since the whole story arc is about him feeling guilty about putting her in danger and they end up back together anyway, the break-up scene feels unnecessary. He could have gone the whole movie staying with her and feeling guilty and that would have served the same purpose in the end result, plus taking away from the scenes that dragged.
Early in the film, we meet Max Dillon, who will remind you of Edward Nygma/The Riddler in 'Batman Forever'. He is lonely, has no friends and becomes obsessed with Spider-Man when he is shown a little attention. Jamie Foxx is a great actor. The character is not over the top like Jim Carrey did Riddler. The filmmakers expect you to remember all that 'cross species genetics' stuff from the first movie so you won't question why they are building an electric generator out of eels. Max falls in there and becomes Electro. He becomes a villian when he feels slighted that Spider-Man doesn't remember his name. His fight scene is also a little long, but very cool and does develop the character very well.
Peter soon meets up with his old friend Harry Osborn. Harry finds out that he inherited a debilitating disease from his father. Because of Oscorp's dabbling in 'cross species genetics', Harry suspects that Spider-Man's blood can help him find a cure and hates him when he refuses to help, fearing (because of his father's research) that it will do more harm than good. I liked Peter and Harry's relationship. This was the part of the movie that could have been better developed if they cut out the on-again, off-again stuff with Peter and Gwen. They could still develop their relationship and have it be as romantic and cute as it is (one of the film's strengths), but a little snip could have given us more Peter and Harry.
As I said, there is a lot of "stuff" that makes the first half of this movie seem long and yes, they are developing future movies, but most of it does come together quite well in the final action scene, which was one of the most intense that I have seen in a while. Very dramatic and well-done. Director Marc Webb is very good at human drama, evidenced by the rom-coms he did pre-Spidey, but snipping SOME of the love story to develop the Peter/Harry rivalry would have only benefited that final scene, which is quite a tear-jerker even if you are familar with the outcome of 'Amazing Spider-Man #121' from 1973. People in the theatre I was at were crying like Tobey Macguire during a bridge scene. Peter does find out more information about what happened to his father and that Oscorp is evil, which moves his story forward and sets up future sequels and spin-offs.
I appreciate the efforts that this and the preceeding film made not to repeat/imitate the Tobey Macguire/Sam Raimi Spidey movies. In the reboot, they took the "Spidey becomes a wrestler" part out of his origin because we saw that before. They nodded to it by having Peter's mask be inspired by a wrestler's mask. There is a version of the Green Goblin in the comics where Harry becomes a villian before/instead of his faher, so they went with that to avoid compairsons to the old series. Part of me wanted to see J. Jonah Jameson, who is referred to, but not seen, but since my complaints were about the film being too cluttered in places, maybe I should just wait patiently for the third film. And for the record, I am totally for them using the same guy, even though the rest of the cast is different. I believe in J.K. Simmons.
So, even though it dragged in a few places, 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' is a very fun movie where everything comes together very well in the end. Some fun nods for comic book fans and enough romance to keep the women in the audience interested (enough). I give this movie 3 thwips out of 5.
The opening scene shows us Peter's father running away and leaving Peter with Aunt May just like the first movie, but gives us more information on what he was working on. Then, we have a great "opening" action scene where Spidey is trying to take down the Russian gangster who later becomes the Rhino, despite the fact that Peter/Spidey is late for his high school graduation. This scene is very exciting. It has a lot of humor and is fun to watch. Paul Giamatti is a great actor. Buuuut, the Rhino is only shown at the beginning of the movie and at the end. Two very cool scenes. Very funny and they both have a point, buuuut, Rhino should not have been in trailer based on the small amount of screen time he gets. Yes, they are setting up the "bad guy" movies, which is why they gave a great actor such a small part, but don't expect too much Rhino but DO expect to enjoy the Rhino you get.
Real-life couple Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone have great chemistry as Peter and Gwen. Peter breaks up with Gwen early on in the film, because whenever he is fighting crime as Spider-Man, he sees Gwen's father, who died in the first movie after making him promise that he would stay away from Gwen to protect her from his enemies. But since the whole story arc is about him feeling guilty about putting her in danger and they end up back together anyway, the break-up scene feels unnecessary. He could have gone the whole movie staying with her and feeling guilty and that would have served the same purpose in the end result, plus taking away from the scenes that dragged.
Early in the film, we meet Max Dillon, who will remind you of Edward Nygma/The Riddler in 'Batman Forever'. He is lonely, has no friends and becomes obsessed with Spider-Man when he is shown a little attention. Jamie Foxx is a great actor. The character is not over the top like Jim Carrey did Riddler. The filmmakers expect you to remember all that 'cross species genetics' stuff from the first movie so you won't question why they are building an electric generator out of eels. Max falls in there and becomes Electro. He becomes a villian when he feels slighted that Spider-Man doesn't remember his name. His fight scene is also a little long, but very cool and does develop the character very well.
Peter soon meets up with his old friend Harry Osborn. Harry finds out that he inherited a debilitating disease from his father. Because of Oscorp's dabbling in 'cross species genetics', Harry suspects that Spider-Man's blood can help him find a cure and hates him when he refuses to help, fearing (because of his father's research) that it will do more harm than good. I liked Peter and Harry's relationship. This was the part of the movie that could have been better developed if they cut out the on-again, off-again stuff with Peter and Gwen. They could still develop their relationship and have it be as romantic and cute as it is (one of the film's strengths), but a little snip could have given us more Peter and Harry.
As I said, there is a lot of "stuff" that makes the first half of this movie seem long and yes, they are developing future movies, but most of it does come together quite well in the final action scene, which was one of the most intense that I have seen in a while. Very dramatic and well-done. Director Marc Webb is very good at human drama, evidenced by the rom-coms he did pre-Spidey, but snipping SOME of the love story to develop the Peter/Harry rivalry would have only benefited that final scene, which is quite a tear-jerker even if you are familar with the outcome of 'Amazing Spider-Man #121' from 1973. People in the theatre I was at were crying like Tobey Macguire during a bridge scene. Peter does find out more information about what happened to his father and that Oscorp is evil, which moves his story forward and sets up future sequels and spin-offs.
I appreciate the efforts that this and the preceeding film made not to repeat/imitate the Tobey Macguire/Sam Raimi Spidey movies. In the reboot, they took the "Spidey becomes a wrestler" part out of his origin because we saw that before. They nodded to it by having Peter's mask be inspired by a wrestler's mask. There is a version of the Green Goblin in the comics where Harry becomes a villian before/instead of his faher, so they went with that to avoid compairsons to the old series. Part of me wanted to see J. Jonah Jameson, who is referred to, but not seen, but since my complaints were about the film being too cluttered in places, maybe I should just wait patiently for the third film. And for the record, I am totally for them using the same guy, even though the rest of the cast is different. I believe in J.K. Simmons.
So, even though it dragged in a few places, 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' is a very fun movie where everything comes together very well in the end. Some fun nods for comic book fans and enough romance to keep the women in the audience interested (enough). I give this movie 3 thwips out of 5.
'Divirgent' movie review
'Divirgent' is a 'Hunger Games' knock-off...and I say that from a very realistic place. Even the Divirgent book came out three years after the first Hunger Games book. I WAS going to review this film on its own merits, but since this movie has the same audience as Hunger Games, learning how much better Hunger Games was is relevant to how much this sucks.
Divirgent takes place in a future world in which the city of Chicago has been decimated by a war. And you don't really know what's "out there" beyond the city of Chicago. Like Hunger Games, it uses the backdrop of the future to set its own rules. This is a different world than we live in. There are five factions (in Chicago) that serve different purposes in this society, the intellectuals, the soldiers, the selfless ones (and two others) and they all have funny names. There are some technologies that we don't have in real life, but other than that, the futuristic backdrop is just used to set its own rules. No flying cars etc. (I just watched 'Fifth Element'. None of that stuff here.)
Deleted scene Mary Jane Watson actress Shailene Woodley plays this girl who was born into the "selfless" faction (that is called something else). She and her brother take an aptitude test that tell them which faction they would best fit into. Her results are inconclusive, labeling her as (dumb dumb dumb) divirgent! The lady who administers the test is nice enough to manually label her with the faction she grew up in, because we learn that divirgents are feared by the intellectuals who are trying to wrench power away from the selfless. People who don't fit into society's (five) molds threaten the whole system and some have even been killed. It is a much less interesting take on the "people don't understand me" teen angst sci-fi trope than the X-Men films. All "being divirgent" does to this girl (and others who are) is that when the bad guys inject them with a mind-control serum, it doesn't work. They can't fly or stop bullets or any Neo-like powers that would have improved this film.
Potential MJ doesn't like the selfless faction. She wants to look at herself in the mirror (which is not allowed) because she's a teenage girl, so she joins the soldier faction. "I wanna look at myself in the mirror, Mom! I'm joining the Army!" Yes, that is a major plot point. Then, she jumps onto moving trains with her soldier buddies and gets a tattoo. In 'The Hunger Games', Katniss is thrown into the "action" by a draft that she can't control. The government picks her younger sister and she selflessly goes in her place (a commentary on young people being drafted into war). Here, the rebellious (whiny) girl joins the Army because her parents are too strict. Yes, she is sorry later, but the movie still glorifies teenage rebellion with the tattoo and the train jumping. More "fight against the government" stuff (a beloved sci-fi trope) would have helped the plot (as it did with Hunger Games...and Star Wars...and The Matrix), but here is where Divirgent gets really sloppy.
As soon as the girl joins the Army faction, she meets this boy who is a jerk to her and later softens and they end up together. Yes, picture that in the most cliched teen romance way you can, because that's it. And...to make matters worse, there are LOOOOONG scenes of kids training for this Army. Scenes in movies where people are fight training bore me to tears unless something else is done to spice them up. In 'Rocky', it was a musical montage with a rousing theme. In 'Batman Begins', it was intercut with scenes of Bruce learning stealth and making smoke bombs. In 'The Matrix', the training scene was not that long and had some cool effects. In all three of these examples, the characters were established before they starte training, so you cared what they were learning. This movie uses the training to establish the characters and it doesn't work because you don't care who is fighting and it takes you out of the movie. At least 'Ender's Game' had zero gravity stuff.
Like I said, this movie should have focused more on the "bring down the system" stuff, which is more interesting "rebellion" for a movie than running away to join the Army and getting a tattoo. I give this movie 1.5 ferris wheels out of 5, just because Woodley and her movie mom, played by Naomi Watts, give good performances.
Divirgent takes place in a future world in which the city of Chicago has been decimated by a war. And you don't really know what's "out there" beyond the city of Chicago. Like Hunger Games, it uses the backdrop of the future to set its own rules. This is a different world than we live in. There are five factions (in Chicago) that serve different purposes in this society, the intellectuals, the soldiers, the selfless ones (and two others) and they all have funny names. There are some technologies that we don't have in real life, but other than that, the futuristic backdrop is just used to set its own rules. No flying cars etc. (I just watched 'Fifth Element'. None of that stuff here.)
Deleted scene Mary Jane Watson actress Shailene Woodley plays this girl who was born into the "selfless" faction (that is called something else). She and her brother take an aptitude test that tell them which faction they would best fit into. Her results are inconclusive, labeling her as (dumb dumb dumb) divirgent! The lady who administers the test is nice enough to manually label her with the faction she grew up in, because we learn that divirgents are feared by the intellectuals who are trying to wrench power away from the selfless. People who don't fit into society's (five) molds threaten the whole system and some have even been killed. It is a much less interesting take on the "people don't understand me" teen angst sci-fi trope than the X-Men films. All "being divirgent" does to this girl (and others who are) is that when the bad guys inject them with a mind-control serum, it doesn't work. They can't fly or stop bullets or any Neo-like powers that would have improved this film.
Potential MJ doesn't like the selfless faction. She wants to look at herself in the mirror (which is not allowed) because she's a teenage girl, so she joins the soldier faction. "I wanna look at myself in the mirror, Mom! I'm joining the Army!" Yes, that is a major plot point. Then, she jumps onto moving trains with her soldier buddies and gets a tattoo. In 'The Hunger Games', Katniss is thrown into the "action" by a draft that she can't control. The government picks her younger sister and she selflessly goes in her place (a commentary on young people being drafted into war). Here, the rebellious (whiny) girl joins the Army because her parents are too strict. Yes, she is sorry later, but the movie still glorifies teenage rebellion with the tattoo and the train jumping. More "fight against the government" stuff (a beloved sci-fi trope) would have helped the plot (as it did with Hunger Games...and Star Wars...and The Matrix), but here is where Divirgent gets really sloppy.
As soon as the girl joins the Army faction, she meets this boy who is a jerk to her and later softens and they end up together. Yes, picture that in the most cliched teen romance way you can, because that's it. And...to make matters worse, there are LOOOOONG scenes of kids training for this Army. Scenes in movies where people are fight training bore me to tears unless something else is done to spice them up. In 'Rocky', it was a musical montage with a rousing theme. In 'Batman Begins', it was intercut with scenes of Bruce learning stealth and making smoke bombs. In 'The Matrix', the training scene was not that long and had some cool effects. In all three of these examples, the characters were established before they starte training, so you cared what they were learning. This movie uses the training to establish the characters and it doesn't work because you don't care who is fighting and it takes you out of the movie. At least 'Ender's Game' had zero gravity stuff.
Like I said, this movie should have focused more on the "bring down the system" stuff, which is more interesting "rebellion" for a movie than running away to join the Army and getting a tattoo. I give this movie 1.5 ferris wheels out of 5, just because Woodley and her movie mom, played by Naomi Watts, give good performances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)