REVIEW: Ant-Man

5/10 - Honey I Shrunk the Franchise

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has really become this behemoth of films. Among the cannon, I somewhat forgot about Ant-Man and when I sat down to watch it, I was hoping it would be more of a stand alone comedy type film, something to stand apart from the usual Marvel fare. While Guardians was funny, it was also establishing a massive sci-fi universe, and Iron Man is an action franchise. Paul Rudd is more romantic comedy hero, then Avengers hero. There was this potential to poke fun at the Marvel hero franchise and make a really great movie. 

Instead, Ant-Man shrinks among the superhero competition. Ant-Man stars Paul Rudd as Scott Lang, the criminal with a heart of gold. He's conned into wearing the Ant-Man suit by the original Ant-Man, Hank Pym (Michael Douglas). They collaborate with Pym's daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) to battle the bad guy who wants to do bad things for bad reasons, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll) aka Yellowjacket. 

Ant-Man reminds me quite a lot of the 2011 Seth Rogen vehicle, The Green Hornet. Both films were action movies that should have been funny, but weren't. I couldn't help but feel like Ant-Man was a different movie being crammed into the Marvel formula. There is no reason to cast Paul Rudd other than to make that character funny and charming. I can't say Scott Lang was either. Rudd is pretty established in the types of roles he plays, which is why this film felt like there was so much untapped potential. 

Michael Douglas is a respectable mentor for Ant-Man. He makes a good straight man for jokes, because on paper Hank has the personality of oatmeal. Douglas has that enough on-screen charisma to make it work, and he seems like a guy you want in your corner. Evangeline Lilly is sports a shockingly unflattering haircut that seems to steal every scene she's in. Corey Stoll is a great

character actor, but this role is pretty silly. He's somehow the head of what can only be a massively expensive military defense experiment and yet is clearly deranged. It's always disappointing to me when movie bad guys don't have a good back story. 

I think the right path for Ant-Man was to keep the scope of the Ant-Man universe small. By referencing the Avengers, and taking the story into Spider-man territory, Ant-Man forces itself to compete with those films. It just doesn't hold up. At it's heart, Ant-Man is a heist movie, using Rudd's charisma as a cat burglar, and the size advantage of an ant to pull the heist of the century. What happens is Ant-Man ends up in a fist punching battle with a literal army of Ants riding into war. Ant-Man lost the battle with a training montage. At no point should Paul Rudd's super power be throwing a fist. I love the guy, but I just don't buy it. 

IMDb - Ant-Man (7.5)
Wikipedia - Ant-Man
Rotten Tomatoes - Ant-Man (79%)
Amazon.ca - Ant-Man

REVIEW: Jurassic Park

10/10 - Hold on to your butts!

Jurassic Park is probably my all time favorite movie. 

It's got dinosaurs and it's awesome. That's it. I love it. 

It's also a tight, intelligent story, that totally holds up over 20 years later, with impressive special effects, wonderful characters, and a concept that permeated pop culture for decades. This is Spielberg at his best. One of the iconic adventure film. inauthentic raptors and all. 

To celebrate my favorite movie, I just want to share some of the great moments that make me love this film. 

That Alan Grant introductory monologue, telling a kid why a velociraptor is scary and not a six-foot turkey. This was a great moment to legitimize Alan as a knowledgeable scientist, with a healthy respect for dinosaurs, and foreshadow what was to come. But why is this kid on a archaeological dig? Where did he come from? Why is the kid there if he doesn’t know anything about dinosaurs? My biggest question, why do all the other adults let Alan tell this innocent kid about what it will feel like to get eaten alive? That’s kind of messed up. What a great scene.

"If The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."

How freaking great is Jeff Goldbulm. In the making-of special features, Spielberg said Goldblum was a naturalistic actor who always sounded like he was coming up with the lines in the moment. It's so true, that's definitely the appeal of Dr. Ian Malcolm. Thank you Michael Crichton for this phenomenal character.

"I’m always on the lookout for the next ex-Mrs. Malcolm." 

I love the way the way the raptors are the mystery element. The very first scene shows an animal cage, and then something goes wrong and a guy gets eaten. Back to that Alan Grant monologue that happens to me more real than he knows. Then at Jurassic Park the pen for the raptors doesn't show anything, they're all hidden under big leafy trees and bushes, but get to destroy an airlifted cow. Even Muldoon, the Kenyan game hunter, says "they should all be destroyed." The T-Rex might have been the "star" but these guys were the unseen danger. J.J. Abrams has become famous in recent years for using the mystery element in his movies, and this is the sort of thing that inspired him. Raptors are all we heard about in the first half of the movie, so you knew when you saw one in the second half, you were in big trouble. 

"The park will open with the basic tour you’re about to take."

The combination of Samuel L. Jackson as the chain smoking Ray Arnold and Wayne Knight as the nefarious Dennis Nedry is just so delightful. Sometimes character actors make a movie, and in this case, the almost cartoony relationship between these two adds so much depth and texture to the world.

“Find Nedry, check the vending machines!” 

The inexplicable appearance of a cliff that didn’t exist 15 minutes earlier. If you ever noticed that,
congratulations you continuity expert! It's my favorite goof. The T-Rex paddock is a major set piece, as the jeeps break down next to it, and we spend a lot of time looking beyond the fences to see if our movie monster will appear. The little goat sits waiting just beyond the fence, we can see the ground inside the T-Rex pen, it's all flat. Then! A few scenes later! The Jeep the kids are in gets pushed like a kickball inside the T-Rex pen where it... falls off a big cliff. Where did this cliff come from? It's the exact same location the goat was in earlier, and now it's a 30-foot drop. What happened here? It's made even better when later, Ellie goes to look for their missing Jeep and somehow sprints down to the bottom of this cliff and back up to their search car in about a 3 minute round trip. Pretty impressive, Ellie!

"...He'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. 

You stare at him, and he just stares right back"

It’s almost cheesy to look back on the set design now, but the creation of these elaborate set pieces are what made Jurassic Park so great. It wasn't just a location, it was a theme park. It was Disneyland for dinos. Everything from the animal cages to the door handles had such distinct branding, unique to this world. Now, those images are quite iconic, with the Jeeps going down in movie history as one of the more memorable vehicles.

"T-Rex doesn't want to be fed. He wants to hunt. 

Can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct."

Finally, maybe my favorite thing about Jurassic Park, the score. John Williams is just a genius. I think every movie score that gets stuck in my head has been composed by John Williams. It's hard not to love those themes. There's not situation where singing the Jurassic Park theme doesn't immediately make everything a thousand times better.

"Hammond, after some consideration, I've decided, not to endorse your park."

Even though Jurassic Park is so high on my list of movies, I haven't watched the new Jurassic World yet, as I'm re-watching the whole series before getting to it. I'm sure it's a great addition to the Jurassic franchise, but lets be honest. Chris Pratt is no Jeff Goldblum.

IMDb - Jurassic Park (8.1)

Wikipedia - Jurassic Park

Rotten Tomatoes - Jurassic Park (93%)

Amazon.ca - Jurassic Park

Review: The Gambler

4/10 - When did Marky Mark turn into Kevin Bacon?

I'm not sure why I was supposed to watch The Gambler. Did people think it was a good movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? It's like a movie that just came into existence and disappeared just as quickly. Which makes sense because even after seeing it, because I still have no idea why this movie was made.

From what I gather, this was a remake. That's important because in the context of 2015, this is an irrelevant movie. I can't see this movie getting made on spec right now and getting any attention. It's a movie with an irrelevant story about irrelevant characters for today.

The plot rundown is something about Marky Mark being a rich baby who has a wicked job as a professor but gambles away everything he earns, and screws around with one of his students.

I think the biggest take away from The Gambler was how much I am becoming skeeved out by Hollywood. The very talented Brie Larson plays the young innocent love interest. And while their relationship was somewhat inappropriate within the story, because he is a teacher and she is a student, all I could think about was the idea that she was probably birthed with "Good Vibrations" playing in the delivery room. This age gap is becoming so common, and the more I see it the more awkward I find it. It's easy to look at the context of each relationship in each movie individually and justify the age gap as being part of the story, but it's something that happens so often it's really a gross trend that I'm not a fan of.

Back to the movie itself, I can't decide if I think Marky Mark gives a good acting performance. With a lot of unintentional condescension, I found myself impressed that he could spout out long poetic lines while his literature professor character lectured his class. There were no scenes of him running with a gun while explosions were going off in the background. which is pretty much the only reason he does movies anymore. I totally loathed his character though, and I largely attribute that to his utter lack of charisma and charm.

Jessica Lange, on the other hand, is a gift to the world. Although she is not a major character, all of her scenes come into sharp focus with her presence. Frankly, this movie is worth watching for the pleasure of watching Lange slap the Froot Loops out of Marky Marks mouth.

Overall The Gambler about reckless people making poor decisions, without any consideration for the consequences of their actions. There's nothing sympathetic about a character with an endless supply of cash who's problems come from gambling that money away, especially considering the state of the American economy today. I actually found that the higher the stakes were, the less I cared about the outcome of story. As interesting as some of the set pieces and scenarios were, they were so underutilized with a plot that cannot possibly resonate with the audience.


IMDb - The Gambler (6.1)
Wikipedia - The Gambler
Rotten Tomatoes - The Gambler (46%)
Amazon.ca - The Gambler

REVIEW: Interstellar

10/10 - Epic is a really good word for this movie

Christopher Nolan is a director that built his name on action adventure movies that brought audiences to new worlds with imaginative concepts. Coming off films like The Dark Knight and Inception, the expectations for his sci fi space opera were quite high.

Interstellar is a journey that takes the audience from a dystopian future to the limits of outer space. It's the ultimate cowboy movie, throwing a good ol' farmer into a new territory, looking to claim land for the US of A. This whole film has the feel of being bigger than this movie, bigger than it's story. Perhaps even bigger than Nolan could wrangle. It is a fantastic cinematic experience though, perhaps the best of the year. It hands the ability to infinitely discover the universe to the audience. Interstellar truly feels like a masterpiece, worthy of a grand scale.

The story itself is about Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a NASA engineer turned farmer who struggles to raise a family during an environmental crisis. Coop gets recruited to join a mission to explore a nearby wormhole, as they believe nearby planets could help save the dying Earth. It's a mission to provide a future for the son and daughter he leaves behind.

What sets Interstellar apart is that it doesn't just tell a story, it shares an experience. We tend to break films down into categories, in order to decide whether they were worthwhile. Story, acting, special effects, audio, what was good and what was bad? In any film, Interstellar included, those specific areas can be picked apart and examined as a contributing part to the film as a whole. In this film, I was so enraptured with the rabbit hole we had been thrown into, that it seemed rather irrelevant to pick apart the individual areas of technical design. The overall effect was so powerful and storytelling so innovative that I felt as though I was a part of the mission the astronauts were on.

For the sake of the review, I'm obligated to share those criticisms. The emotional story was a bit uneven, and I left with more questions about Coopers family then I had answers. At some points conversations felt long, and claustrophobic.

The biggest issue seemed to be the trouble in bridging the science fiction elements to an audience of people without physics degrees. Part of that comes from the desire to tell a story with an explanation grounded in reality but also, science fiction in film seems to arise a bizarre sense of entitlement for scientific accuracy. I get where this comes from, we want to trust and believe in the universe so that story lives on. I can only presume some journalists didn't get the "fiction" part of "science fiction" because I've read a thousand articles desperate to point out minute scientific inaccuracies.

Frankly, we need a better outlet to explore our fascination with great movies, than to credit or discredit the film with educational tidbits of astrophysics. "Debunking" the scientific accuracy only serves to undermine the outstanding achievements of this film.

From beginning to end, Interstellar is an outstanding movie. It utilized every aspect of film making to give the audience an experience never seen before. From the silent explosions in space, to the shocking affects of gravity on a new planet, Interstellar pushed the limits of what humans can experience by putting it on the big screen. If there is ever a film worthy of putting down your phone and offering it your fullest attention, this is it.

IMDb - Interstellar (8.7)
Wikipedia - Interstellar
Rotten Tomatoes - Interstellar (72%)
Amazon.ca - Interstellar

REVIEW: The Maze Runner (And a YA series rant)

5/10 - Da do run run, hey! Da do run run!

I hate movies like this. By that I mean movie-franchises like this, movies that are build to be part of a trilogy or whatever. There's something so infuriating about a film that intentionally is left incomplete. It offers no sufficient climax to the audience. Perhaps there is an action climax on some level, but certainly no emotional one.

I think the failings of The Maze Runner can be attributed in part to the failings of the novel in creating a series. Part of what works in the Harry Potter series of novels is the school story framing device. It provides a clear timeline for events to build up, and conclude. The Hunger Games features an annual event that play out over the year culminating with the Games themselves. These things are tremendously helpful in creating expectations, creating suspense, and allowing the audience to be included in the emotional journey. It ebbs and flows with the natural catharsis of life. For young adult series' like Divergent and The Maze Runner, that don't have that framing device, the narrative becomes a never-ending series of events that build, and build, and build and break. It's not as satisfying and it doesn't draw in the reader to the next adventure. Divergent had a somewhat okish climax and conclusion, but left the audience to fester in frustration at plot holes, and unfinished stories lines A poor 'hook' for the next film. At least it had full and complete story beats and a conclusion of the action. I've read the books, and they go downhill quickly. The Maze Runner isn't so fortunate. It's as if they took the first act of a film and dragged it out to create a two hour movie where almost nothing happens.

The essential problem with a movie that sets up for sequels is it's need to create questions without providing answers. What ends up happening is I cross my arms and look pissed off, knowing that when they say things like "I don't know who I am" that they will never get addressed in the course of the film. Let's be clear: That's fucking bullshit. A movie should be able to stand and walk on it's own two legs, sequel or not. This film cannot. If you take The Maze Runner for what it's worth, without considering it to be part of a series, this movie crumbles. It's got about as much story content as a 22 minute TV comedy. That's unacceptable.

I know I shouldn't keep comparing this franchise, but lets be honest if it wasn't for the success of the other YA novel adaptation film series's then this movie would have never been made. So lets compare it to The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games, the world is introduced as part of what shaped the protagonist. When Katniss gets entered into the Hunger Games, that's the turning point and she experiences the Capital, the people there, the games, who runs them, and what meaning they have. Then she gets into the games, and a bunch of crazy shit goes down. In The Maze Runner, there is no setup or introduction. The protagonist is a blank person. We experience the glade and learn about the maze over a painstaking first half of the movie where no information is the only information. Then they go into the maze and ... that's it. All the questions of who these people are, what motivates them, why they are doing this, what their purpose is, nothing is answered. I don't even have a clear view of the characters by the end of the film because they literally don't know themselves. It's beyond frustrating to know that it's going to take 3 movies for this series to tell the story that should have been told in 1.

In conclusion, there are some special effects and some great kid actors (along side a bunch of really, really terrible ones) and you'll have to spend another $30 worth of movie tickets to find out what really happens.

IMDb - The Maze Runner (7.0)
Wikipedia - The Maze Runner
Rotten Tomatoes - The Maze Runner (63%)
Amazon.ca - The Maze Runner

REVIEW: Godzilla

7/10 - RAAAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRRR

So... I'm not a huge fan.

In recent years a ton of hype around a budget remake has proven to be a bad thing. They aren't inherently bad films, they just tend to be boring. Take a good, classic concept and water it down with excessive CGI and bad leads. To be honest, I was anticipating this 2014 Godzilla remake to be Pacific Rim part two, which would be a nightmare for me.

When it comes down to it, I don't like movies where it turns into a puppet show. If all the action and drama surrounds CGI monsters smashing CGI cities, it doesn't actually have any impact anymore. It should be incredible and awe-inducing but instead it actually deminishes the high stakes because it's so far removed from reality. There are no real-world, personal impact for a movie like that. There are no characters in danger, only puppets. That's actually why I'm a big fan of Cloverfield, but we can save that for another day.

You may have noticed, however, that I gave this film a higher rating. How deductive of you, congratulations you have fantastic reading and recollection skills.

Godzilla does have many strengths that have defied the shitty genre of military based action films. fighting some equally terrible big bad. It manages to ground the film with a single character and his family who's been impacted by the Godzilla-events. There is some minor "out smarting" that always has to happen to make a protagonist seem worth while. It even manages to make the scale and might of these beasts (because spoiler: there's more than one) seem monumental.

If you are like me, and you are immune to the hero shots and slow motion running away, then you will appreciate that Godzilla has some beautiful moments of quality. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Taylor-Johnson are quite compelling in otherwise stiff roles. There is a lot of "background" provided to the monsters and where they came from. The military reaction is fun to watch, even if its cheesy at times. It rides a fine line between turd and terrific. As much as I despise CGI replacing the need to even film a movie, the impact of the destruction was really well done.

As a whole, not a lot makes sense. In fact, nothing makes sense. Here are my current qualms with Godzilla:

Why was Godzilla a second class citizen in his own movie? For real, he wasn't even the big-bad.

Was the audience supposed to follow the bullshit alpha-predator history that was spouted? Because none of that made sense. Also, would the worlds leading scientist on whatever the hell Godzilla is, really hinge his bets that one monster will defeat the other and everything will be sunshine and rainbows after that? That's not real. Nope. Don't buy it.

What about the fact that various branches of the military just took Aaron Taylor-Johnson on a few trips around the world? All because he asked nicely? That was cringe-inducing at some points. He would literally walk in a room where the worlds fate was being handled and say "hey guys... Can I get a lift back home? I can do that bomb stuff, I promise." Really. That's how the military works.

Abandoning the kid halfway through the film was a bizarre move. It was as if the second half of the movie didn't have time for those annoying "human actors" so they just disappeared from the story.

I also have major issues with the ending. If Godzilla rose from Hades to hunt those other monsters, he should have done what predators do when they finish hunting. They eat! He's probably super hungry now, because he went back to bed without dinner. You all know you would have loved to watch the cleanup.

For all my complaining, it wasn't a bad film. There are great environments, lots of surprising twists and turns. The moment on the train tracks reminded me a lot of the magic that Jurassic Park had. That's something I wish other movies in the same genre understood. You'll never be able to shake the audience with scope and scale of a big monster. The same audiences have sat through too many Transformers movies, a thousand Marvel films, and we are sick of seeing the side of a skyscraper fall off. It doesn't mean anything. By innovating and showing exactly how terrifying that would be, the monsters feel much more real. Godzilla should never be a monument. Gareth Edwards comes close to unleashing that beast.

IMDb - Godzilla (6.8)
Wikipedia - Godzilla
Rotten Tomatoes - Godzilla (73%)
Amazon.ca - Godzilla

REVIEW: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

8/10 - The polar opposite of Iron Man 3

Back in 2011 when Captain America: The First Avenger came out, I had some mighty expectations for the Marvel franchise. Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were great. Loved both, as everyone did. Iron Man 2 was a bit wack-a-doodle. Thor was never going to be my cup of tea, and it turned out to be a snoozefest. They cast one beast of a man to stare at during those long boring Asgard scenes, so I forgave them.

Captain America represented something different. It had the potential to do what Incredible Hulk did, tell a more grounded story. They both have similar backgrounds, having been experimented on for the military, being isolated and unable to exist in society. Taking the super out of the hero might be benefitial to the franchise.

Sadly, Captain America: The First Avenger was as unwatchable as an action movie can get. It was long and boring, with poor character development, stiff dialogue, endless sequences and storylines that seemed to go no where. It felt as corporate as a movie can get. It was the idea of a movie that had no soul or purpose.

Before I even saw a trailer, I judged The Winter Soldier as being the same. The biggest cliche in the superhero universe is to face off against an enemy who is an evil version of the hero. Hulk fought evil Hulk. Thor fought his brother. Wolverine fights evil wolverine every few years. Iron Man fought other iron men in three different movies now. Captain America actually broke from that mold in battling Hydra and it was a huge flop for me. The Winter Soldier would clearly be an evil Captain America and I would be asleep.

I'm glad I revisited and gave The Winter Soldier a chance. Yes, The Winter Soldier is an evil Captain America. No surprise there. What did surprise me was how great of a movie this turned out to be.

The fresh blood of the Russo Brothers without question revitalized this franchise. The cinematography is some of the best in the franchise, with clean and simple setups for scenes that still look quite "comic book" iconic. There is somewhat of a Bourne Identity quality to parts of the film, with handheld camera shots and realistic sets. They don't fear staring an action sequence in the eye, allowing the audience to follow the fights. They also don't fear the dialogue heavy exposition scenes, a frequent failing of Marvels. Instead of presenting dumb, condescending dialogue for the sake of moving along the story, characters actually represent their own point of view. Interpersonal conflict doesn't solely exist with gun fights.

There is some fantastic chemistry within the film between Chis Evans and Scarlett Johansson. By that I don't mean romantic chemistry, I mean they show mutual respect for one another and illustrate their history on the battlefield. I have a tremendous appreciation for a film that supports a male hero with a female who doesn't turn out to be a love interest. I don't think I can express that enough. They built a relationship on trust and it wasn't remotely sexualized. That's not to say there isn't a love interest, but all the women in this film are able to stand on their own accomplishments. Agent 13 is introduced and even though her role is small, she packs a punch. Cobie Smulders returns as Maria Hill and once again stands her ground as being one of the best supporting characters, seemingly replacing Agent Coulson for awesomeness. Peggy Carter is also revisited, as Steve Roger laments her loss. She never was, and never will be a damsel in distress, a love interest more than capable of fighting her own battles.

Sure, there are plenty of cliches and logical fallacies. There's a heavy handed theme regarding drone killings, something one would think should be tackled under the Iron Man titles, but hasn't been. There are some sluggish moments, usually involving sentimental flashbacks, but every superhero needs to be grounded at some point. There are problems, but not like the page 1 rewrite the first movie needed.

This is one of the best Marvel movies to date, in my opinion. It successfully navigates a multitude of storylines because of the great cast of characters it follows. It doesn't even feel like it should have been titled The Winter Soldier. The story felt complex and important, unlike the MacGuffin universe Thor lives in. The direction and editing were a massive improvement. I think their biggest success was sustaining and surprising an audience after cranking out a Marvel movie ever 20 minutes. Captain America: The Winter Soldier felt like more than just a fun adventure, it had a theme and purpose. It actually feels like it stands on it's own, outside of the Marvel universe.

IMDb - Captain America: The Winter Soldier (8.2)
Wikipedia - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Rotten Tomatoes - Captain America: The Winter Soldier (89%)
Amazon - Captain America: The Winter Soldier

REVIEW: Gravity

Best Picture Nominee

10/10 - An Action Movie Masterpiece

What's to say about Gravity that hasn't already been said? It's a one of a kind journey with a fantastic director and cast, special effects that are shockingly real. It's probably the most gripping and engaging action movie to have been released in years.

Gravity is the story of an astronaut, Ryan Stone played by Sandra Bullock, who attempts to survive in space after a nearby satellite explodes, while on her first mission to space.

This film reminds me of a science fiction version of Cast Away, the struggle for one persons survival against insurmountable odds. Tom had Wilson, and Sandy has Clooney. Unlike Cast Away, however, the predictable nature of the tidal wave of destruction that will orbit the Earth makes this rather unbelievable for some people. It's one thing to cross an ocean, but to cross the atmosphere was too much for people. I disagree with that sentiment, because there were no superhero moves made. She didn't hop motorcycle into a helicopter, she found a way to survive. That's what movies should be about, the strength of will.

I think the best compliment I could give this movie is that there have been lots of 3D films, and lots of films about space exploration, but after 15 minutes, you will have forgotten that Gravity was filmed back here on Earth.

IMDb - Gravity (8.2)
Wikipedia - Gravity
Rotten Tomatoes - Gravity (97%)
Amazon.ca - Gravity

REVIEW: The World's End

8/10 - Well it was a lot of fun, wasn't it?

Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg bring another fun adventure movie that's sort of, but not quite like, the other movies they've done. 

Just like the other movies in this alleged "trilogy" (a status I don't feel should automatically imply a level of quality) The World's End stars Shaun, I mean Gary, who is an every-man facing unconquerable alienation, this time with aliens. As in the previous two movies (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) where everyone else became a zombie, and everyone else became a murderer, in The World's End everyone else becomes some sort of robot alien thing. As with the other two movies, the social outcast Shaun/Nicholas/Gary/Simon must harness the power of friendship to fight against the literal social pressure and save the day. 

The World's End was good. Comparatively it is much more matured then their previous efforts. I worried that this movie would become repetitive and boring when at the launch their goal is to visit twelve pubs, something that doesn't lead to fascinating new adventures. Most of the comedy felt fresh, and the action never became monotonous. It was exciting and engaging, with a unique story that still felt grounded in character. There were in-jokes to let the audience feel smart, and the pacing allowed a huge number of events to occur without the stretched out feeling that Hot Fuzz had. It was unpredictable, not random, and just a lot of fun.

I wish there had been more women in this movie. I don't know how else to say this when I repeat it at almost every movie review. I don't know why it's such a complicated task. Perhaps when you take a boy's club like Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost, they want to reflect what they know, and what they know is their own friendships. Almost every character was married, and had major relationships with women in their lives, yet there were no women with significant roles. None of them were full characters and only one appeared on screen. Honestly, why is this considered acceptable? 

I thought the ending was a bit off. It was fine, just clunky and obvious. I wanted the subtext to be sprinkled throughout, but there were large chunks of the movie where the character's growing stories were forgotten in lieu of action sequences, and in order to make up for that there were long explanatory passages that were being shared like it was an instruction manual. In fact, the movie opens and closes with an unmemorable history lesson. Granted, these are subjective kind of issues that took me out of the movie, but maybe wouldn't bother everyone. It just all feels jarring and abnormal for some, otherwise great, storytellers. The major problem that may have snowballed was the antagonist. They are passive and have no motivation. When you don't have a force that can outsmart or out fight the protagonist, these problems happen. 

Having said all that, The World's End really did meet my expectations. Maybe it didn't surpass them, but that's okay because it was still great. It's worth seeing several times, because without questions there are details that are meant to be picked up on during your second or third watch. It's fun and original, and will be a nice addition to the blu-ray collection. Give them your money, they need it for beer. 

IMDB - The World's End (7.7)

Wikipedia - The World's End

Rotten Tomatoes - The World's End (90%)
Amazon.ca - The World's End

REVIEW: Iron Man 3

Confession time: I've spent more time and words on this review than many of my college essays. My first draft of this was over 5 pages long. That's insane for a mediocre movie.

5/10 - It's really not very good.

Iron Man 3 was fast paced and enjoyable. It was a lot of fun to watch, something Iron Man 2 was completely missing, and it was very Tony Stark focused. All great things.

This is the biggest mess of a screenplay I've ever seen in action. It starts stories and drops them completely. It forgets about it's own plot and characters. The sentiment is vague and shallow. It has a ton of 80's action movie cliches and expects them to go over super seriously. That's what I get for watching a movie that starts with not one, but two different flashbacks.

WARNING: This is going to be incredibly spoilerific. I will ruin this movie if you haven't seen it.

The moment I turned against Iron Man 3 was after the first major action sequence when his house gets destroyed. There were small problems before, but this was infuriating. Tony Stark's house blows up, and he is presumed dead by the newspapers. Great, except.... Why didn't any of his 'super friends' come to help him? Even if none of the Avengers knew about the attack and no one could stop it, wouldn't Captain America get sent out to help stop the terrorist who already murdered a fellow Avengers? They mention the events of The Avengers every 20 seconds, you would think it was for a tie-in. What about Rhodes, why wasn't he protecting Tony? Furthermore, why didn't he care that Tony was pronounced dead? Tony call him up after "dying" and Rhodes says "Hey buddy, what's new?" Are you kidding me? This is not reality. There are no consequences to actions, this is nonsense.

Pepper Pots also had no purpose or clear story. Which is a shame because it started with such promise. An early moment has the Iron Man suit, on its own, attack Pepper. That's a beautiful setup for Pepper to fear the Iron Man suit and have a touching climactic moment where the suit can't save Pepper, only Tony can. This is particularly poignant after the whole second movie had Tony fighting a guy who created dangerous Iron Man drones. That would be stunningly cohesive. Too bad they fuck it up. Immediately Pepper wears the suit herself to save Tony during the house attack. Now we have a suit that anyone can wear, or can act independently. There are no longer any consequences for Iron Man, he is not fallible he is a pawn. Iron Man and Tony are no longer the same, the myth is over.

I'll restrain myself from nit picking with every single flaw but I'll say this, the whole third act is a disastrous mess. The bad guys have no motive or purpose. Is "Tony didn't give me enough attention when I was a kid" supposed to be motivation? That doesn't explain the totally random actions of the baddies. They just show up and make stupid decisions over and over with no end game or purpose. Maya Hansen shows up to warn Tony, but she also is working for Killian, even though he tried to blow her up. Sounds like a solid business plan to me.

My favorite is when they tie up the president to kill him on television, in the War Machine suit. In a functional suit! They're hanging this guy with some basic rope and they didn't just give him a knife to cut himself down, they gave him a suit with weapons and fire, that can fly him to safety. We know it's functional because ultimately that's what saves him! Did no one use their brains on this movie? How does a $200 million dollar movie make such stupid mistakes.

I really resent the 80's cliches that lead up to the final battle. I don't think lines like "We gotta make a decision. We can either save the President or Pepper. We can't do both." should make it past the first draft of a script, ever. (Spoiler alert: he tries to do both, with a sufficient amount of time to do both. He also fails at both. The President gets captured and Pepper gets infected? injected? whatever. Tony sucks.) There is whole bit about an airplane getting ripped open, and the passengers go flying out! 'Ahh we are losing cabin pressure! Someone save us!' This is so absurd considering The Avengers had an action sequence with Iron Man and Captain America trying to repair the outside of their flying craft, and none of those people went flying out into the sky because there was an open door. Audiences are not this stupid, please stop treating them as so.

By the end of this movie, there is absolutely nothing left to care about. Pepper was a damsel in distress who needed saving, and wasn't saved by Tony. She turned into an x-men mutant and wore the suit to save herself. Then she said the suits should be destroyed. Rhodes took back the Iron Patriot/War Machine suit which Tony immediately set to self destruct? Or not? I have no idea, but an accidental murdering of Rhodes would really improve this movie. Can someone explain why he blew up the suits by the way? The time to fear the drones was early on, especially after the fallout from Hammer. I don't think Pepper using the drones to save Tony twice would make her then turn around and say to ditch them. If anything she would finally sympathize. Weren't they having some sort of "marital miscommunication" at the beginning of this movie, too? What happened to that? Oh nothing. What happened to Happy? Nothing. What happened to Rhodes? Nothing. What happens in this movie? Nothing. Tony Stark is a nobody who has no character growth, makes random choices, screws up a lot, and could have solved everything if he kept his mouth shut and stayed in his basement.

IMDb - Iron Man 3 (7.5)
Wikipedia - Iron Man 3
Rotten Tomatoes - Iron Man 3 (78%)
Amazon.ca - Iron Man 3

REVIEW: RED 2

5/10 - Action movie, action movie, something something whatever.

Here's the thing. It's the same stuff we got in the original. That's what you want to get in a sequel, right? Because we wanted more. But that's why it's bad. Wait, that doesn't make sense. 

This is the cycle of sequels. We liked the first movie, want more, get more, are disappointed that it's just like the original. 

It was fine action movie. It was funny in the right moments, surprising and unique like the original. It had great pacing, moving the story along without delay. Its got great actors (from the original) who are smart and funny and unpredictable. It had absurd scenes of stuff blowing up. The crucial puzzle piece missing is that it's not surprising. Because we saw the original.

As far as sequels go, this movie nails it. If this was a stand alone it has a strong enough story to be relatively interesting. But it doesn't do anything to rise above the original. 

I think the biggest problem I have is with the story itself. Which I already said was good. It's still totally fine, just a pet peeve. Red 2 is a school lesson from the MacGuffin Institute where you learn how to make an arbitrary object so important that they need to save the world. Dear Action Movies: you don't always need to save the world. Every time, saving the world. Maybe think of something else? I'm a little sick of the bombs waiting to detonate. 

If there is going to be a Red 3, I want to see it get more personal. The world doesn't need to be ending. Maybe just the protagonist's world? I wish more sequels did that. 

I definitely would not recommend someone dropping $15 on a theater ticket to see Red 2. Wait until it's on Netflix, and if you liked Red, then maybe check out Red 2 some night. On a Wednesday when there's nothing else good on television. 

IMDB - Red 2 (7.1)

Wikipedia - Red 2

Rotten Tomatoes - Red 2 (41%)
Amazon.ca - Red 2

MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek Into Darkness

9/10 - Phenomenal sequel, worth the admission price.

In my continued series to review movies that are no longer relevant, I saw the new Star Trek Into Darkness in glorious 2D.

First, I want to talk about how impressed I am that this is a sequel. When you take away all the history, and the expectations, this is just an action movie that was successful and spawned a sequel. For me, it's pretty impressive to make a watchable sequel in 2013. Because they are typically garbage (Transformers).

Into Darkness takes the typical movie magic formula and makes it work. The writers rip away everything important and do so in a way that doesn't seem unnecessary or fake. As many sequel writers have said, things have to get more personal the second time around, and they do a great job in this. I may have got a little teary eyed at one moment, but it's totally fine. It's just allergies. Don't look at me. 

It's definitely derivative, and the one thing I do notice over and over again with Damon Lindeloff is that he tends to reinterpret an idea that's just a little bit too familiar. Great story, great atmosphere, but if I took away that stuff the plot would be a story a modern trope. Good or bad, you decide. I still enjoyed the movie and was surprised by the end result.

I'm a little disappointed with how characters well established in the first movie are sort of shelved in the second. I was particularly bothered by two characters, Uhura being marginalized despite remaining a fierce female presence, and Chekov being sent to the boiler room for much of the film.

I am inclined to talk about the role of women particularly because of Dr. Marcus being a fluff piece. Movie goers have likely noticed the decline of gratuitous sexuality in regular films lately and this is probably why. The character of Dr. Marcus is fine but she feels a little one dimensional until she reveals her true plot-device purpose for being on board. Before her character is really tested, she decides to strip for Kirk. No

The Cast of Star Trek 2

one is really sure why. The ironic bit to this comes from the fact that this film is pretty well written, and the beats move so fast, which is why this scene is causing attention. When every scene is written with a purpose and payoff, and all of a sudden you ask the audience to stare at boobies because you like them? That's not going to sit well. This is why we need women in the movie industry who can get editing jobs with red pens and can say "nope, cut it." and make me happy.

I have no doubt that this role has transformed many peoples view of Benedict Cumberbatch aka Sherlock Holmes. He is now an action legend. I will fully admit that I wouldn't have thought he had it in him. He can obviously play brainy, but it takes something special to be a great evil genius. He truly lucked out with the writing because rarely are villains given enough to be terrifying. Not only is "John Harrison" mysterious, he clearly has an intention, and a viable plan. He really could out wit them all and that's invaluable. I think his character is what solely elevates Into Darkness into superb-sequel territory.

Overall, I dig Star Trek 2-ish. It's a great adventure series and it has a lot of great actors. It doles out memorable giggles and genuine emotion. It's probably one of the better movies I have seen this summer. If you want a real edge of your seat action movie, don't miss it.

IMDb - Star Trek Into Darkness (8.2)

Wikipedia - Star Trek Into Darkness

Rotten Tomatoes - Star Trek Into Darkness (87%)
Amazon.ca - Star Trek Into Darkness

REVIEW: Oz the Great and Powerful

6/10 - The great and powerful cash grab. 

Does this movie add anything to The Wizard of Oz that makes a prequel worthwhile? No, not really.

Is it a great movie that makes you think? Absolutely not.

Compared to some other big budget bombs that have come out lately, this movie really isn't that bad. Zack Braff is very entertaining. The combination of the beautiful score, with the imaginative, saturated visuals engages the senses. I never found it predictable, as the whole movie relies on a suspension of belief. There is a lot of charm in this movie, as it tries to show hope for "goodness", bordering on cavity-inducing sweetness.

It's never lacking in something to look at, or laugh at. It also has lots of those "did you like that part?" moments.

That stuff kind of kills me, as a movie fan. Moments that are cinematic but totally not stimulating. Writer's have to put in those moments, and for the most part I think that's why people see movies, for the big action scene at the end, or that super funny part that they can quote with their friends. It's the overabundance of cinematic sequences that are either predictable, pandering, or irreverent in terms of story. Moments that are either visually stunning, engaging with action, incredibly funny, or obviously emotional. It's movie paint-by-numbers. Sad-part here. Funny-part here.

That's the essential problem with Oz the Great and Powerful- The story doesn't actually make sense, it just wants the audience to feel like it does.

Does Oz learn anything in the end? No. What's the deal with the witches? Why did the evil one become not important, the good one become evil, and the other good one, stay kind of goodish? I still can't make sense of that. And just to get the story straight... They free The Emerald City from the oppressive witch who pretends to be good so that Oz (the guy) can pretend to be good instead? Is this an improvement? It's thin. At best.

I think what lacked in story, translated to some of the performances, on screen. Playing a Wicked Witch ought to be the role of a lifetime. But the three witches are bland and boring. Does Michelle Williams pour her heart out while retelling Oz of the terrible lies her sister has told, about killing her own father? No. It's not even a big deal. She's just stating a fact.

Mila Kunis seems to want to bring the drama, but her role doesn't make any sense. She's a witch, doing nothing, who becomes love sick, and then turns evil against her will. She should be a powerful central figure, but she floats through it all. Should a powerful witch be so easily crushed by a broken heart?

Rachel Weisz has one of the best roles in the film, being the one major schemer who's truly evil and sinister. But she is hardly remarkable. Not to mention James Franco. I will admit, that their must not have had an easy task, presumably filming most of this on green screen. Perhaps that's why these characters don't seem to react or resonate. The original Glinda was glorious to behold. Oz ought to be smart as a whip, and charming beyond belief.

The movie also drags it's heels, trying to make unimportant sequences grandiose. It runs at around 2 hours and it should be 90 minutes, max.

I have a lot to pick apart in this movie, but that might be because on first watch I saw that it was technically sound, very entertaining, and the scenes kept rolling, as it should in a big budget spectacle. It's not really a terrible film, as long as you don't think about it afterwards.

IMDb - Oz the Great and Powerful (6.6)
Wikipedia - Oz the Great and Powerful
Rotten Tomatoes - Oz the Great and Powerful (59%)
Amazon.ca - Oz the Great and Powerful

REVIEW: Snow White and the Huntsman

I have to preface this review by saying that I watched this movie back when it first came out, and thought it was a perfectly fine movie. Some weird bits. Went on too long, but pretty good otherwise.

That's why I bought the movie when it was on sale.

Now that I am watching it again, I don't know what I was thinking. This is a big pile of stinking garbage.

4/10 - I liked it once. Now I want to tear out my eyeballs it's so bad. Please don't make me watch this again. 

I take it some people in Hollywood think it's trendy to adapt fairy tales. Why anyone banked on this being a good idea is beyond me. (Maeby Funke?) There are a grand total of none that have been good. I have my score card to prove it.

Trying to turn the kids story of Snow White into a dramatic, stylized, action movie is the equivalent of trying to polish ... mud. I am supposed to take this "mirror mirror on the wall" stuff super seriously? And the seven dwarfs? That's straight out of Game of Thrones! Of course I'll think it's legit.

The redeeming factor is the fact that every scene with Charlize is golden. The lady can do crazy. Watching her is like watching a bad student art project, but with a $170,000,000 budget. She's fabulous but it's not movie redeeming fabulous.

The fact that I am expected to spend two full hours of my life watching Kristen Stewart prance around with the same "vampire lover" expression, is the mental equivalent of water boarding. Saying "this is bullshit" would be an insult to bullshit. I don't think I can remember anything she even did in the movie, and she's the damn protagonist.

At least Thor gave us something to look at. He gives a good effort. I can get the point he is trying to make, as his sexy voice narrates the movie. There is however, one point where "Snow" says some stuff to the people and they revolt against Queen Charlize (God Bless the Queen). This was clearly the Braveheart moment of the film. She was supposed to be the driving force to help the people. What a flop. She showed the ambition of a wet noodle. Do Kristen and Chris have chemistry? No, of course not. Not that I blame them. I don't think little miss "wahh" face couldn't make that happen, since there are no tight close ups with Muse playing in the background. Their romance is cringe-worthy because I feel sorry for these people, having to act it. This is a $170 million dollar film, and I feel sorry that the actors have to do this crap. What kind of movie is this?

In conclusion, if you want a Lord of the Rings style version of a predictable children's tale, with bizarrely amped up moments that appear to be totally irrelevant to the plot, as well as some of the worst acting ever recorded on film, this movie's for you! It's so slow, and dull that you might fall asleep and not realize!

I am reluctant to even link to this movie because I don't want to make anyone else endure this torture.

IMDB - Snow White and the Huntsman (6.2 - You've got to be kidding me)
Wikipedia - Snow White and the Huntsman
Rotten Tomatoes - Snow White and the Huntsman (48% - That's more like it)
Amazon.ca - Snow White and the Huntsman

REVIEW: Jack the Giant Slayer

2/10 - What did I just watch? 

Oh boy.

What was I thinking?

This is a movie no one should have made.

Okay, it's not that bad, but it's pretty bad.

This is a modern Jack and the Beanstalk, blah blah, blah.

The characters are flat, one dimensional, and even with phenomenal casting can only be compared to watching a movie played by oatmeal. Did you know that Stanley Tucci was in this? Because I watched it and I already forgot. Nicholas Hoult, I will admit, is alright. He is a charmer, and a great young actor. Eleanor Tomlinson, on the other hand, is so forgettable I cannot even recall her characters name. The only other actor worth mentioning is Ewan McGregor, who definitely tried to squeeze the lemonade out of this lemon, and stole the show. Unfortunately it didn't improve this crap movie.

Jack and the Giant Slayer is long and dull. There is so much emphasis on action and showing off this CGI universe, that it becomes monotonous and dry.

This is a guy's story, and I am getting VERY tired of the token female roll. We can do better than this, Hollywood! A princess who is out of his league,  who is helplessly engaged to someone she does not love, who tries to help and shows a brave face, but is saved by the guy at the end. It's so dull and predictable. Aren't we over this, yet?

The fatal flaw in this boring movie is the central antagonist being the giants. They are slow, dull, dimwitted, dirty, and uninteresting. There's a cheat built into the story where the hero doesn't even need to beat the giants. What a huge waste. Instead of creating a insurmountable enemy, who looks impossible to defeat, but the hero manages to squeeze by with this wits at the last second... no wits are needed and the enemy is pathetic.

The kicker is that this movie is so long. It's fifteen minutes before he even gets the beans. Why wasn't that the first scene? Wasting time on something that should have been in the title is insufferable.

I'll lighten up a bit and say that it does have some entertaining qualities. I was quite shocked by the end when it goes all Lord of the Rings and there is a big violent battle, considering the rest of the film panders to a very young audience.

Sure you can make it though a screening, with it's big budget and special effects. But I doubt you'll want to see it again.

IMDB - Jack the Giant Slayer
Wikipedia - Jack the Giant Slayer
Rotten Tomatoes - Jack the Giant Slayer (52%)
Amazon.ca - Jack the Giant Slayer

REVIEW: The Avengers

9/10 - Quality movie, if you like watching stuff get blown up. 

What do you say about The Avengers?

The Marvel universe has become something you are either in or out. People tend to either be fans, or not care. This is problematic when a monument like The Avengers comes along, and you want to share what a great movie it is, but there are 5 movies that lead up to it, which explain the whole story. People who haven’t seen The Incredible Hulk might get by just fine, but will they understand without having seen Thor? Probably not. (Which sucks, because Thor was a 5/10 at best.)

As a writer myself, I am constantly amazed by the mastery that is Joss Whedon’s writing. He is formulaic and indulgent, but also tight and concise. He gives the audience all the moments they want, the hero shots, tension breaking laughs, one liners to take home. He takes  seven main characters and successfully builds them up, tears them down, then builds them back up again.

So. The Avengers is a movie about a bunch of people who save the world. It’s hard to say this is predictable movie when there are so many moving pieces. It has a great rewatch factor because every shot and ever line brings things forward together a little bit more, and you want to catch up on those references.

I think The Avengers is significant because audiences seem to have a desire for more complicated stories in their "typical action movie cereal bowl." Combined with other recent releases like The Dark Knight Rises, Skyfall, and Looper, I don’t think the mindless action movie is fitting the bill anymore. I'm not impressed by boring bad-guys and car chase scenes that go on for too long. These movies are making sure that even during the action, they are writing in beats to movie the characters forward and take them on an unpredictable journey. Isn’t that what an action movie is supposed to be? A fast-paced journey that leaves you smiling.

IMDB - The Avengers
Wikipedia - The Avengers
Rotten Tomatoes - The Avengers (92%)
Amazon.ca - The Avengers