Tag: review

Options for decent movies are few and far between in late-February.  The next big crop comes up mid- to late-March, but we’re in the doldrums of movies that came out in December with the Christmas rush, and other Oscar hopefuls that get a late release in hopes of generating some buzz.  The “good” sci-fi movies also get saved for the summer blockbuster season, so it’s rare to find a “good” one released in early February.  In many ways, this year’s reboot of the RoboCop franchise may not even be that movie, as it’s had a mixed response, critically.

That all said, I should also point out that  despite the zeitgeist of the time, I didn’t grow up a fan of RoboCop.  It wasn’t exactly a “kid friendly” film, though I’m sure there were many in my elementary school that had seen it.  I didn’t get to see it until college, well after I’d been exposed to far, far better special effects.  Ketchup-style fake blood and stop-motion robots just didn’t do it for me, though I could at least appreciate that, for 1987, it was probably pretty cool.

The franchise consisted of 3 movies, a TV show, a cartoon, and countless toys.  I suspect many fans of the character would have preferred that only the first movie existed, as just about everything after it was generally bad.  That first movie, though, was prescient for its time, discussing such themes as militarization of law enforcement, drone warfare overseas, and corporations taking over the government and suppressing The People.

Perhaps 2014 is a really good time for a re-boot.

This new version of RoboCop includes similar characters, but is a pretty different movie, to my mind.  This version of Alex Murphy (played by Joel Kinnaman, who is largely unknown besides starring in cult-favorite The Killing) is a devoted family man in the near future, and incorruptible cop in Detroit that makes an enemy out of the leader of a local crime ring, who swiftly takes Murphy out with a car bomb.  Severely injured, his only hope is to have most of his body replaced by machine parts, “free of charge” by OmniCorp, which is run by Raymond Sellars (played by Michael Keaton).

Sellars is only doing this, though, because he wants his androids on the streets of the US.  To replace police officers.  His robots are already overseas fighting our wars for us, so “saving the lives of cops” (i.e. bit fat checks from local and state governments…) is his next venture.  What he needs, however, is a “human face” on his cold cyborg army, so “upgrading” Murphy is his way of making it happen.

This movie, as compared with the original, focuses far more on the human element.  The point at which we cease to be human and start to be machine.  Murphy struggles with having control over his own body, as OmniCorp can shut him down remotely at any time.  They can control how much personal decision-making can be applied in any given situation (i.e. whether to be more like a human cop, or more like an efficient, cold, robot).

On this front, I think the movie largely succeeds.  It is more of a “thinking man’s RoboCop,” which sets it apart from the previous outing.  It takes the original source material and updates it for our modern age, complete with a Glen Beck-style news anchor (played by Samuel L. Jackson) asking whether US Senators are “pro-crime” for not subscribing to Sellars’ world-view.

In the end, the acting was fine.  The writing was fine.  The effects were pretty good, but not spectacular.  There were a few pretty obvious moments when we switched from “dude in costume” to “that’s a CGI dude…really obviously…”  The original movie had quite a few bloody action scenes, and while this one certainly had its share, they were mostly shootouts, which can get a little boring without some hand-to-hand combat and explosions to back them up.

I thought it was good, but not great.  A solid rental, but I’m glad we saw it in the regular theater rather than spending extra for IMAX.  Some good ideas, but could have been more.

Thanks to a set wonderful grandparents, Brooke and I took the opportunity to offload the kids for an afternoon so we could go see a movie.  We’ve both read the three books in the Hunger Games trilogy (Brooke’s read the first one more than once…), but we didn’t see the first movie in theaters.  Of the three books, the second one, Catching Fire, was my favorite because, while it still included “The Games” like the first did, and the associated action set pieces, it also brought the larger conflict of the world into the story with more political dealings.  All three books really put their focus on the character of Katniss Everdeen at the expense of showing the reader the rest of what’s going on everywhere else in the world (i.e. they’ll refer to events but won’t show them to you; it’s all second-hand).  The second book, and especially the third, start to open that up quite a bit more, yielding a bit more interesting storytelling, in my opinion.

We both thought the first movie did a good job of balancing the content from the source material with the special effects needed to make your money back in theaters nowadays.  Thankfully the sequel, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, continues in that vein.  I haven’t read the book for a few years, but we both agreed that, while there were definitely a few things left out, most of the key story beats were present, and even the ending was nearly identical to the book.

The story this time out centers on Jennifer Lawrence‘s character, Katniss, and how she has dealt with being one of two Victors of the 74th Hunger Games, held each year between the 12 Districts of Panem (in a future-ish version of the United States where the government collapsed, leaving a reorganization of, well, everything…).  Because of the way the previous movie/story ended, the President of Panem, Snow (brilliantly played by Donald Sutherland), seeks revenge upon Everdeen for stirring up conflict between the Districts: conflict that could lead to revolution and his own downfall.  He and his cronies devise a special 75th Hunger Games that pits the previous winners from each District against each other yet again, thereby setting up a reason for us to return to the Games for a second movie/story.

The movie’s about 2.5 hrs long, so it does feel like it drags a little bit during the first half.  Having read the third book, however, I didn’t mind it because what some folks would see as “filler” is really “foundation” for the third story (and the next two movies…which, as is the trend nowadays, are both drawn from the final book, split in half…).  In that vein, there have been a few reviews out there that appear to criticize the movie for being a bit slower than the first one.  Again, I feel, this stems from those that haven’t read the books and haven’t seen events in their full context.  When we saw the movie, the woman in front of us saw the ending and was genuinely surprised that, apparently, “there’s going to be another one.”

To us, having read the books, we thought it was pretty good.  The action was fun, the effects were still as good or better than other major motion pictures pull off, the acting is as good as one would expect (especially from an Academy Award winner…), and it’s still cool to watch a pretty good read play out on the big screen without dramatic changes.  It’s pretty important that you see the first movie before this one (well duh…), but if you’ve got the time to read the books, I think you’d get more out of it.

You know how there are some movies you grew up with that, although you love them, you recognize that they had quite a few faults?  Movies where you saw it when you were 10, thought it was awesome, and even though you’re older now and realize it probably wasn’t even that good of a movie, you still tell yourself you love it (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, I’m looking at you…)?

Pacific Rim is probably that movie.

Look, there are some pretty cheesy lines in this.  The plot is very predictable.  The CGI is sometimes ridiculously obvious.  Most of the acting is fine, but some is just passable.  There are multiple nonsensical plot holes.

And yet, for some reason, I had more fun watching this movie than many of the others I’ve seen this year.

The brief synopsis involves an inter-dimensional rift opening near the bottom of the Pacific Ocean where giant monsters code-named “Kaijus” (Japanese for “strange creature,” paying homage to the Godzilla franchise) emerge on an increasingly regular basis, wreaking destruction and havoc on coastal cities.  Jet fighters and soldiers prove not to be enough, so the Jaeger program is initiated in order to produce giant robot fighters that are controlled by two human pilots (a single human can’t control one without severe brain damage).  Though the Jaegers do well at stopping the onslaught for years, the Kaijus begin to evolve and improve and ultimately put them on the defensive, until there are only a few remaining.  The bulk of the story picks up at the end, with what is to be the “defeat them once and for all” moment of the war.

If you’ve seen any sci-fi movie, you can see where this is going.  Mentor brings hero back into the fold to save the world once last time and meets cute heroine, learning a thing or two from her in the process about himself and his station in life.  Other characters are lost tragically until the very end, when it’s time to save the world, requiring ultimate sacrifice.

But knowing all that, I still enjoyed it.  There are times when you want to go to a movie, turn off your mind for a few minutes, and watch giant robots beat the crap out of giant monsters.  This is why the Godzilla movies did (do?) so well at the box office: story matters to an extent, but in the end, the people come for the monsters.  And oh, the monsters.  The Kaijus are coming through the rift, but each one looks/acts a bit different.  Some fly, some have strong tails, some spit blue acid goo at you, some are just big bruisers.  Their variety is endless (and unexplained…this is one of those “nonsensical plot holes” where the writers fail to explain why these giant aliens come to Earth and now look like crabs, or hammerhead sharks…hmmmm…), and it presents interesting challenges for the Jaegers in how to deal with them.  Sometimes it involves beating them with an ocean liner.  And believe you me, that’s cool.

Guillermo del Toro is a popular director among many, though I can’t say I’m his biggest fan (the Hellboy movies just didn’t do that much for me…).  However, I do appreciate his ability to craft a world that’s intricately detailed.  Rather than just seeing “giant robots” walking around, through the eyes of the human pilots, you actually see the gears turning and the hydraulics pumping.  You can see the evolution of Jaegers, where the older ones look primitive, compared with the newer, sleeker, faster ones.  You get a sense that these things are big, rather than just two dudes in monster suits walking around buildings made of cardboard.  Even though the Kaijus are obviously CGI characters, you see them in a context with the Jaegers and the surrounding cities that makes you believe what you’re seeing, rather than being constantly “pulled out” of the experience.  Seeing it in IMAX 3D probably helped with the blending of real people and CG animation.

So yes, in the end, I enjoyed it quite a bit.  Is it going to win a “Best Picture” Oscar?  No.

Was it a ton of fun?

Heck yes.

I have something of a tenuous relationship with the Superman franchise. That is to say, I like the Richard Donner original and I even liked 2006’s “Superman Returns,” but these aren’t movies I pull out on a regular basis like I do “The Dark Knight” or “Spider-man.”

One thing I always found attractive about the character was the good old-fashioned feel of classic Americana.  “Truth, Justice, and The American Way,” and all that.  The character of Superman was an outsider, but one that identified with his adoptive planet and sought to defend its people with a strong sense of American-centric values and morals.

That’s not what this movie is about.

“Man of Steel” is a unique interpretation of the franchise, arguably one that it needed.  “Batman Begins” was a necessary reboot of the its franchise, grounding the character of Batman in a somewhat more realistic world while avoiding the campiness that had plagued the more recent films.  Superman hasn’t really had that problem, but at the same time, “good old-fashioned Americana” doesn’t sell quite the same way it used to.

And thus, we get a reboot of Superman.  This time, we get an extended look at what was happening on Krypton at the time of its destruction, when Kal-El was shipped off by his parents to find refuge on Earth.  Through a series of flashbacks, we see key moments of Kal-El’s upbringing as Clark Kent.  Unlike the previous movies (though this has been explored in other media, especially “Smallville“), it was nice to see the influence of Clark’s fathers on him throughout the film.  Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner) both hoped for the future of their son, yet each represented different (yet converging) paths.

Henry Cavill’s Superman was also different than earlier films.  Brandon Routh essentially copied Christopher Reeve’s version, but Cavill differentiates himself with a bit more emotion and more of a longing for a place in this world.  Again, I see the influence of later Superman properties in Cavill’s interpretation, while Routh and Reeve both veered toward the “Americana” vision pre-1980s.  Personally, I think Cavill did a pretty great job for his first time in the suit.  And dude, that guy is ripped.

Really, the first half of the movie was pretty good.  And in some ways, the second half was “good,” too.  But the second half is a different movie from the first half.  See, in the first half, there was a back story for Superman, how he was born, raised, and eventually put on the suit.  The second half involves the utter obliteration of Metropolis as Superman battles General Zod (Michael Shannon), who wants to recreate Krypton on Earth.  Seriously, while I was watching that portion of the movie, I kept thinking it was reminiscent of a “Godzilla” flick, with building after building just being knocked over.  The effects were great and the action was fun, but there wasn’t much story once we got to that point.  Heck, they got Laurence Fishburne to play Perry White and the man was barely in the movie.

It didn’t help that I didn’t care for Shannon’s portrayal of Zod, either.  I don’t think I disliked the character, per se.  I simply wasn’t in to Shannon’s acting.  He just didn’t give me the feeling that he was a cold hardened military badass from another planet.  It took me a few minutes, but after the movie was over, I decided Stephen Lang should have played that role, as he was the military-bred bad guy from “Avatar.”  I believed that Lang had a mission to complete and that nothing would stop him from doing it.  I didn’t get the same feeling out of Shannon.  Maybe that was just me…I dunno…

There is also a controversial ending to this movie, centering on the final confrontation between Superman and Zod.  Personally, I didn’t mind it, but it definitely put the final nail in the coffin of the “Christopher Reeve-era” Superman portrayal.

Generally, I felt this movie was “middling.”  There were definitely some cool parts, some chuckle moments, some great back story that hadn’t been outlined previously (at least in the movies).  At the same time, I was still left wanting.  Some glimmer of the Superman character that made him popular in the first place.

Just a little more “Truth, Justice and The American Way” would have been great.

Iron Man isn’t a comic character I followed growing up: I was more of a Spider-man guy. That said, I greatly enjoyed watching Robert Downey, Jr. fall into Tony Stark, arguably the perfect role for Downey’s playboy-esque manner and bravado.  The first movie centered on Stark’s survival at the hands of Afghan terrorists, then converting his military-reliant weapons and technology business into a peace-driven venture, helping to wipe away the decades of damage wrought by himself and his father before him.  The second outing for the character, Iron Man 2, focused on Stark’s new-found celebrity, as he coped with the fact that the world knows that he’s Iron Man.  To be honest, I didn’t care for the second one all that much, but upon a second viewing awhile back, it grew on me a bit.

Enter Iron Man 3, the first post-Avengers movie featuring, well, an Avenger.  The first Iron Man movie helped pave the way for Marvel to bring The Avengers to the big screen (and it was awesome…), and now, with the third movie in the franchise, it’s all about Tony Stark coming to grips with the aftermath of the events in last year’s hit.

That is to say, a lot of this movie deals with Stark enduring something akin to PTSD.  Like…a lot of this movie.

I don’t mean the movie’s bad, but there’s a lot of comedy to it, a lot of character interactions, a lot of Tony Stark and how he deals with the world around him.  But I didn’t think there was all that much Iron Man in it.  Sure, he was walking around in the suit (or dragging it behind him…), but even when he was in the suit, he was literally just walking around, chit-chatting, making jokes…not actually being Iron Man. Heck, he nearly didn’t fly until the end of the movie.  Most of the action scenes dealt with Tony: not with Iron Man.

The performances by the actors were all superb, as always.  The effects were great.  I saw it in IMAX 3D, and while I can recommend the “IMAX” part of that, I didn’t think the “3D” was all that necessary.  If you want to see it in any normal digital theater, you probably won’t miss much.  Still, I can’t say the 3D detracted from my experience at all.

The story wasn’t even bad, necessarily.  It kinda returned to the “foreign terrorist” feel from the first movie, along with another baddie from Stark’s past (played by Guy Pierce, who I thought did a decent job…though Ben Kingsley should have had more to do, in my opinion).  But there were so many threads going, between the PTSD line, the Pierce line, the Kingsley line, the relationship with Pepper Potts (Gwenyth Paltrow), the Iron Patriot stuff, and others that focusing on fewer threads may have helped solidify the story a bit better.

Seriously, why Iron Patriot?  It was barely featured, yet it seems like a big deal was made of it in all the marketing.  Why?

So, in the end, I’m glad I saw it, but the first movie still reigns supreme.  Perhaps I’ll like this one better on a second run-through, but for now, I’m just considering this one “so-so.”

Good thing Star Trek: Into Darkness comes out next week. 🙂

In an effort to express my “anticipation level” for this movie, let me first point out that I read the book, “The Hobbit,” for the first time this Fall, and I re-watched the “extended edition” versions of “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy over Christmas Break (about 11 hours of content, give or take).  It’s about as “prepared” as I could get.  Having just read the book, I was at a loss to explain how exactly they were going to turn a relatively short book into another three movies.

Surprisingly, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” didn’t really feel all that long to me.  Yes, it’s longer than it needs to be (running time is 169 min), but I’m honestly surprised that it gets you about a third of the way into the book, while also “filling in some gaps” that are left out, in tying it more closely with “The Lord of the Rings” (henceforth referred to as “LotR”…).

Perhaps I should back up a step.   “LotR” covers the adventures of a hobbit, Frodo Baggins, and his crew as they attempt to destroy the Ring of Power so it cannot be used by the evil Lord Sauron to take over Middle Earth.  Frodo obtains this ring from his uncle, Bilbo Baggins, but we aren’t really told how he got it, except that another character, Gollum, had it before Bilbo and desperately wants it back.  The book, “The Hobbit,” was actually published almost 20 years before “LotR,” and it contains the back story for how Bilbo got the Ring.  In movie form, it’s being presented as a prequel, even though  the book was actually published long before.

To be honest, going through the story here isn’t going to be all that interesting.  It follows the book, but also includes a few additional scenes with actors from “LotR,” including Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, and others from the movies.  Unfortunately, in this case, they’re looking quite a bit older than they did in “LotR” (perhaps I did a disservice by re-watching them a few weeks ago…), even though in this film, they’re shown prior to the events of “LotR.”  Ian McKellen also looks remarkably older, despite the presence of a huge beard, though it’s worse in some scenes and barely noticeable in others.

Generally speaking, the acting was great, the pacing was slow at times, but was far better than I expected, and the effects were spectacular.  Seriously, they were good 10 years ago, but it’s noticeable how far the technology has come to the point where CGI and “real life” blend together better than before.  Again, there really isn’t anything special to mention here as, if you saw the previous movies, you should know what to expect.  Though, I should note that the CGI work on Gollum is pretty spectacular, and has really come a long way in 10 years.  I’ve read some complaints (in relation to the “48 fps” debate…) about the quality of the makeup and the props though, personally, I didn’t think the effects in that regard were that bad.  Maybe here and there, but certainly not offensive.

We saw the movie in 48 fps IMAX 3D, which is something of an “experiment” in modern filmmaking.  Briefly, most movies are filmed/shown in 24 fps (“frames per second”), so this movie was filmed in twice that.  This change has the effect of displaying more images to your eyes in the same amount of time, making all the motion look smoother and more vibrant, but also having the side-effect of losing “motion blur” that is sometimes helpful in disguising “plastic-y” looking props.  Needless to say, film critics either love or hate this, depending on who you ask.  If you ask me, I didn’t notice anything bad about it, yet then again, I was watching the movie “as the director intended.”  It was good 3D, it didn’t hurt my eyes or give me a headache, and I thought the 3D effects were added in sparingly, yet effectively.  If anything, 3D should be easier on your eyes at this frame rate.  You don’t need to see the movie in 3D to enjoy it, but for my part, I just wanted to see it at 48 fps and see what the fuss is all about.

If there’s any problem I’ve got with “The Hobbit,” it’s that the story didn’t really “grab” me.  I could say the same thing about “Fellowship of the Ring,” the first movie of the previous trilogy, but I think part of the reason is that, during that first viewing, you’re trying to keep track of a lot of characters at one time.  At least in “Fellowship,” they were pretty distinct and easy to remember (e.g. the elf, the dwarf, the ranger, the wizard, etc.).  In this movie, they’re almost all dwarves, and I couldn’t tell you what any of their names are.  Granted, there are only a few people you’re “supposed” to care about at this point, but some of those dwarves get a bit more focus later on in the book.  We’ll have to see how it plays out, and I can’t see how they could avoid this problem, but it deserves mention.

In the end, I’m glad I saw it and I’m glad I saw it in 48 fps 3D.  Is it better than the movies from the previous trilogy?  Hard to say, without the next two movies available to get the full comparison.  The first movie of the previous trilogy was the weakest of the three, in my opinion, and it could very well hold true for this one as well.

But if it says anything, I’m still looking forward to the next one.

Seven years ago, Batman Begins shook up the “comic book movie” industry by reinventing the character of Batman, based largely on Frank Miller‘s interpretation from Batman: Year One.  The movie marked a dramatic shift between the mostly despised Batman and Robin (that’s the George Clooney one…), and a much darker, grittier, “realistic” version of Batman (one that doesn’t include the “Batcard“).  2008 marked the release of The Dark Knight, what many critics considered “not just a good super hero movie, but also a really good crime movie.”  This movie continued in its comic inspiration, following the story line that continued from Year One with Batman: The Long Halloween.

As you might imagine, I loved Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  They both were far closer to the Tim Burton vision of Batman of my youth, one that wasn’t as colorful and campy as the movies had become.  These movies looked at Bruce Wayne and the Batman hero has a flawed hero, one that didn’t have super powers, yet still used knowledge and cunning to protect Gotham City.

Thankfully, unlike the earlier movies in the Batman franchise, Christopher Nolan was kept on as director for all three movies, allowing him to build a trilogy with (mostly) the same actors, the same “feel,” and increasing budget to really bring things together at the end.  And, for the most part, I think he succeeded: The Dark Knight Rises is an excellent movie.  Watching the film, you can tell that certain beats were crafted from the beginning, tying characters and scenes from the first movie back to the third one, and so on.  It shows that the same team has been making all three movies, making this franchise feel more like the Lord of the Rings Trilogy than the Star Wars or Indiana Jones trilogies (anything after those first three movies never really happened, so far as I’m concerned…).  LotR was filmed at the same time, giving it the benefit of saving money, but the added benefit of continuity throughout the three movies.  The same feel as you sit and watch.  Star Wars had different teams involved in the three movies, making each movie feel pretty different.

The Dark Knight Rises is comprised mostly of two key books from the comics: Batman: Knightfall, and The Dark Knight Returns (also by Frank Miller).  The movie opens 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight, with Bruce Wayne now a recluse, Wayne Enterprises hemorrhaging money, and cops taking charge of crime in the city, without the help of Batman.  You can tell that Bruce has had a difficult time of “letting go” of his love, Rachel Dawes, but also of being Batman: a persona he had to give up in order for the (manufactured) legacy of Harvey Dent to survive.  However, when Bane, a mercenary trained by Ra’s al Ghul (from Batman Begins) as a member of the League of Shadows, appears in Gotham City, Bruce knows he’s the only person able to defeat him.  The story navigates a roller coaster, of sorts, with Batman returning to Gotham, his exit from Gotham after Bane “breaks him” (a key moment from Knightfall), and then his “rise” again at the end.  All throughout, we see how the people of Gotham, and the police force specifically, have learned to live without Batman, while still needing his return.

Generally speaking, all the usual suspects were in the movie, and they all did well.  Christian Bale has proven he can do both Bruce Wayne and Batman (no easy task), and Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine continue to serve in their respective roles masterfully.  This time, Freeman and Caine seem to take something of a “back seat” in the movie, while Oldman steps up, being given quite a bit more to do as Commissioner Gordon.

The rest of the supporting cast, I’ve got a few gripes with, but was mostly pleased.  Firstly, Anne Hathaway did a remarkable job as Catwoman.  She evoked the same sultry “cat like” character from the 60s TV show, as portrayed by Julie Newmar, while also putting her own spin on the character.  That and she was very convincing during the action scenes.  Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gordon-Levitt also do a good job, but I questioned their overall purpose in the film up until the end of the movie.  With them, we’re also starting to add quite a few new characters onto an already large movie.  Matthew Modine‘s character was mostly superfluous, in my opinion.  He served a purpose, but in some ways, it seems like he was in the movie more than Alfred was (which should be a crime…).

Which brings us to Tom Hardy, who plays Bane.  Personally, I think he did a good job in the role, and definitely made it seem like he was a big, big guy.  Very intimidating, very dangerous.  However, we never see his face: it’s always behind the mask.  It’s very difficult to portray emotion when you’re in a situation like that, as you really only have your eyes and arms to try and evoke feeling from the audience.  It’s made even more difficult by the fact that his voice is distorted by the mask (and other effects), which makes it pretty difficult to understand him.  Brooke and I saw the movie at the Moolah, which doesn’t have the greatest sound in all of cinema, but I’m not sure how much of a difference it’ll be in other theaters.  I just think it was a poor choice to distort his voice to that degree, though I understand why they went that route.

As this is long enough, I’ll cut to the chase: the ending was good.  It was appropriate, it was what I wanted without knowing that’s what I wanted.  Everything got tied together in a satisfactory way while leaving enough threads open to give hope to fans that the franchise continues in some manner.

But it’s a clear end to an excellent trilogy.  There are few trilogies that come out like this, where you can safely say that all three movies are good ones, and this is definitely one of them.  I think The Dark Knight is still the best movie of the three, but this one’s still really good.