Back in 2000, Bryan Singer directed the first "X-Men" movie, which marked the start of the Marvel comic movie age (following the next year with Spider-Man). The film not only marked a new beginning for comic book movies, but it also launched the career of its leading actor, Hugh Jackman. And for thirteen years, Jackman has faithfully portrayed the character who is now arguably the most recognizable super-hero in Hollywood--the fierce, clawed mutant Logan, but you probably know him better by his other name...Wolverine.
Yes there has already been a solo Wolverine film that was released four years ago, but we all know how that turned out (and if you don't know then consider yourself lucky). But this time director James Mangold (Walk The Line, 3:10 To Yuma) has teamed up with Jackman to bring us a new story based on the very popular 1982 limited series comic.
In this film, which takes place some time after the events of "X-Men: The Last Stand," Logan has abandoned his role as the heroic X-Man and sworn off of violence forever (which is a long time considering he is immortal). This "vow" is in response to the final events of the 3rd X-Men film when he was forced to kill the love of is life Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who still haunts him in his sleep. Well as one might expect, this "swearing off violence" doesn't exactly pan out when a group of hunters come into a Canadian forest where Logan is living and use illegal means to kill a bear.
But before he gets the chance to finish his revenge on these hunters, he is found by a lady named Yukio (Rila Fukushima). Yukio has tracked him down to bring him to Japan, where her boss wants to thank Logan for saving his life back in WWII. Of course this is not all the dying man wants from Logan, he also wants for him to pass on his immortality to the man because he does not want to die. When Logan refuses, the man warns Logan that his daughter, Mariko (Tao Okamoto) needs to be protected from people who want her dead.
And those people show up the next day at the man's funeral, and Logan takes it upon himself to protect her. There is only one problem, somehow his ability to heal has been hindered and for once in his life Logan can be killed if he isn't careful. What follows is an engaging story full of suspense, romance, and lots of claw stabbing (and ninjas).
A line that was included in most of the advertising for "The Wolverine" said that this film was, "The Wolverine movie you have been waiting for." And the film makers were dead on with that statement. For the first time in the "X-Men" series, we really get a deep look into the heart and soul of Logan. The problems that he struggles with--the burden of having to live forever, the sadness of watching anyone you love eventually dying as you never age, and now the fear of death surrounding him--these issues are brought to the front of the viewers attention and used to drive the narrative. And we also get a lot more of what comic fans love about Wolverine: his sarcasm, blunt remarks, and classic one-liners.
But the credit of the success of this intricate character development has to be given to the incredible work of Hugh Jackman. His sixth time portraying the character, Jackman has never done a "bad" job of playing Wolverine (not even in the painful "X-Men Origins"), but the script and storyline of this film has allowed him to dive even deeper into the character. When he needs to thoughtful, he is, when he needs to be conflicted, he is, and when he needs to look incredibly angry as he slices and dices the bad guys...he does! The X-Men films would not be the same without Jackman as Wolverine.
Now earlier I mentioned the engaging story of the film. To elaborate on that point, "The Wolverine" gets big bonus points for doing something that most sequels (let alone the fifth sequel) fail to do. Instead of speeding things up with action and big set pieces, this time things are slowed down, more-so than your average comic-book film. There is a lot of time given to the characters and the story in this film. The director took a risk with boring audiences with the amount of "down time" between action scenes. But it pays off and the film manages to really engage the audience (and then a big battle comes at the end).
And don't worry action junkies, this is a Wolverine film after all, so there is action to be found. And when there is, it is terrific and thrilling, especially an amazing sequence that takes place on top of a bullet train. The fight scenes aren't just mindless and explosive like they were in "Man of Steel", they move the story along like everything else in the movie, and the balance between action and drama is perfect.
This movie is called "THE Wolverine" for a reason. It is about THE character. It's not about the action, the explosions, or the ways to top other super-hero films, it is about THE character. "The Wolverine" doesn't try to be the next Avengers, and it doesn't try to have the action included in Man of Steel. Instead, its goal is the goal that every movie should have...to tell a great story. And it succeeds on all fronts, drama and action in all, which is why "The Wolverine" ends up being the most well-crafted super-hero film of the year (so far). I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"The Wolverine" has a running time of 126 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sic-fi action and violence, some sexuality and language.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Man of Steel
Most would agree that DC comics do not have that great of a track record when it comes to getting their super heroes on the screen. With the exception of the mega-popular "Dark Knight" trilogy, all attempts to bring characters such as Superman, Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, and others have been met with disappointment and failure. But after the huge success of Marvel's "The Avengers", DC decided to try again with their superheroes so that they can make a Justice League film (like the Avengers but with Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, and Green Lantern). The first step in this road is "Man of Steel" which DC got Christopher Nolan, the writer and director of "The Dark Knight" trilogy, to produce. And with visionary director Zack Snyder, and a strong cast including Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, and of course, Henry Cavill, things looked very promising for this reboot of the Man of Steel. But does it break the long line of DC disappointments?
The beginning of "Man of Steel" shows us a place that, for some odd reason, the other Superman films never bothered to show. This is of course the planet where Superman and his people came from, Krypton. The prelude on Krypton tells how Kal-El (Henry Cavill) was rocketed off to Earth as his home planet was dying. His father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) knows that Krypton is about to blow up, so he sends his son off with the planet's Codex, which holds all the knowledge of the planet and its people in its programming. The military leader of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) wants to codex for himself to rebuild the fallen world on another planet, and he vows to find Kal-El and retrieve the Codex from him, by any means necessary.
The hunt for the Codex brings Zod to Earth, where Kal-El has been living for 33 years under the name Clark Kent, a name given to him by his human parents (played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) that found him as a baby when his ship crashed. Clark has been keeping his true identity a secret from society because he fears they are not ready to accept such as powerful individual (the weaker atmosphere and younger sun has given him his super-powers of flight, strength, laser vision, etc). But when Zod threatens to destroy human life if Clark does not give himself up, Clark is forced to reveal himself to the world and become the symbol of hope that his father always meant for him to be...Superman.
Right off the bat I want to say that this is the best Superman film that has ever been made, and I've seen them all. Now that I have established that, I can go into the details that made this the best Superman film.
A big thing that sets "Man of Steel" apart is that it dives into details that had never really been explained before. For starters, in past films, the people of Earth never really questioned Superman's existence, where he came from, etc. Instead it was just assumed that, "Oh, another super hero is here to save us." In this film, the makers really focus us on the question of what would happen if an alien came to our planet and had a major impact on our way of life. I already mentioned how we really get a look at the planet Krypton for the first time and it is a dazzling place, and the focus on the alien life of these people and Superman really add a lot to the story.
Of course what most will notice is the heavy amount of action in "Man of Steel," something that has also been absent in past entries in the franchise. Believe it or not, none of the past live action Superman films (except for Superman II) have included an actually brawl between the hero and his foe. That's kind of disappointing to think about when you realize that Superman is the most powerful hero ever created and has many different powers.
Well thankfully Zack Snyder has realized that the viewers would like to see the Man of Steel do more than just fly around with his shinny cape (such as punch someone in the face) and he delivers amazing set pieces and action sequences. Finally we see Superman slam people through buildings, punch enemies through the sky, and perform sonic boom neck breaks. The action in this film showcases how it would actually be if two really powerful beings clashed in a giant city, with building blowing up and falling down, etc. To finish this point let me say with full confidence that the final fight between Superman and General Zod is the greatest one-on-one fight that has ever been created in a film. It is epic, intense, and thrilling.
Now many things have been said about the actor playing Superman about his inspiring work ethic as an actor, his workout regimen for the role, his charm, good looks, and so on. And while all of these things are admittedly impressive, he is also an impressive actor, who gives Superman a deeper emotional side and helps make him feel a little more human than past actors have. His greatest achievement though is helping make his character more relatable to the viewers through his actions and the questions and challenges he faces, something that past Superman films have also failed to do.
He is aided by a great cast surrounding him. Crowe and Costner play his two different fathers from different worlds and both will capture your heart with their words of wisdom and inspiration. And Michael Shannon is menacing and vicious as the vengeance seeking General Zod who is evil from start to finish, although part of his character could make you feel a little sorry for him.
But the true heart of "Man of Steel" lies with the messages that are spread throughout it. The tale of Superman is a tale of hope, of purpose, and of faith. It teaches of the ability in every person to be a force for good, and it asks us to think about our purpose as human beings. Never has a Superman film possessed such strong emotional, philosophical, and even theological themes and messages. When you can mix this with a great script, strong performances, thrilling actions, and another truly beautiful score from the talented Hans Zimmer which plays powerfully throughout the whole film, then you have a great super hero film...and an outstanding Superman film. I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"Man of Steel" has a running time of 143 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
The beginning of "Man of Steel" shows us a place that, for some odd reason, the other Superman films never bothered to show. This is of course the planet where Superman and his people came from, Krypton. The prelude on Krypton tells how Kal-El (Henry Cavill) was rocketed off to Earth as his home planet was dying. His father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) knows that Krypton is about to blow up, so he sends his son off with the planet's Codex, which holds all the knowledge of the planet and its people in its programming. The military leader of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon) wants to codex for himself to rebuild the fallen world on another planet, and he vows to find Kal-El and retrieve the Codex from him, by any means necessary.
The hunt for the Codex brings Zod to Earth, where Kal-El has been living for 33 years under the name Clark Kent, a name given to him by his human parents (played by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane) that found him as a baby when his ship crashed. Clark has been keeping his true identity a secret from society because he fears they are not ready to accept such as powerful individual (the weaker atmosphere and younger sun has given him his super-powers of flight, strength, laser vision, etc). But when Zod threatens to destroy human life if Clark does not give himself up, Clark is forced to reveal himself to the world and become the symbol of hope that his father always meant for him to be...Superman.
Right off the bat I want to say that this is the best Superman film that has ever been made, and I've seen them all. Now that I have established that, I can go into the details that made this the best Superman film.
A big thing that sets "Man of Steel" apart is that it dives into details that had never really been explained before. For starters, in past films, the people of Earth never really questioned Superman's existence, where he came from, etc. Instead it was just assumed that, "Oh, another super hero is here to save us." In this film, the makers really focus us on the question of what would happen if an alien came to our planet and had a major impact on our way of life. I already mentioned how we really get a look at the planet Krypton for the first time and it is a dazzling place, and the focus on the alien life of these people and Superman really add a lot to the story.
Of course what most will notice is the heavy amount of action in "Man of Steel," something that has also been absent in past entries in the franchise. Believe it or not, none of the past live action Superman films (except for Superman II) have included an actually brawl between the hero and his foe. That's kind of disappointing to think about when you realize that Superman is the most powerful hero ever created and has many different powers.
Well thankfully Zack Snyder has realized that the viewers would like to see the Man of Steel do more than just fly around with his shinny cape (such as punch someone in the face) and he delivers amazing set pieces and action sequences. Finally we see Superman slam people through buildings, punch enemies through the sky, and perform sonic boom neck breaks. The action in this film showcases how it would actually be if two really powerful beings clashed in a giant city, with building blowing up and falling down, etc. To finish this point let me say with full confidence that the final fight between Superman and General Zod is the greatest one-on-one fight that has ever been created in a film. It is epic, intense, and thrilling.
Now many things have been said about the actor playing Superman about his inspiring work ethic as an actor, his workout regimen for the role, his charm, good looks, and so on. And while all of these things are admittedly impressive, he is also an impressive actor, who gives Superman a deeper emotional side and helps make him feel a little more human than past actors have. His greatest achievement though is helping make his character more relatable to the viewers through his actions and the questions and challenges he faces, something that past Superman films have also failed to do.
He is aided by a great cast surrounding him. Crowe and Costner play his two different fathers from different worlds and both will capture your heart with their words of wisdom and inspiration. And Michael Shannon is menacing and vicious as the vengeance seeking General Zod who is evil from start to finish, although part of his character could make you feel a little sorry for him.
But the true heart of "Man of Steel" lies with the messages that are spread throughout it. The tale of Superman is a tale of hope, of purpose, and of faith. It teaches of the ability in every person to be a force for good, and it asks us to think about our purpose as human beings. Never has a Superman film possessed such strong emotional, philosophical, and even theological themes and messages. When you can mix this with a great script, strong performances, thrilling actions, and another truly beautiful score from the talented Hans Zimmer which plays powerfully throughout the whole film, then you have a great super hero film...and an outstanding Superman film. I give it three and a half stars out of four.
"Man of Steel" has a running time of 143 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sic-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
Monday, May 20, 2013
Star Trek Into Darkness
Hiss if you must, but I never watched any of the older Star Trek TV shows or films. In fact, my first experience with the franchise was with 2009's reboot directed by JJ Abrams. And boy was it great! I was actually reminded of its greatness when I watched it just before the new sequel as part of a double feature that the Crystal River Regal Cinemas offered. After the first film finished, I had an hour until midnight, when I would see JJ Abram's second Trek film "Star Trek Into Darkness. In that hour I was thinking to myself (with the first film fresh in my mind), "Wow there is no way the second will could be better than that." But did Abrams prove me wrong?
Before I tell you, let's go over a quick preview of the plot. We are taken back to the Starship Enterprise on another adventure to some distant planet. Unfortunately for Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) his actions on this mission result in him being stripped of his position as Captain and his ship is given back to Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Well obviously this can't last for long, because a dangerous new threat presents itself when a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) makes deadly strikes against Starfleet. Kirk is quickly reinstated so that he, Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise can go after this terrorist and bring him to justice, dead or alive.
One of the great things that has always existed for Star Trek is what you hear in the iconic monologue that includes these words, "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." This is one of my favorite parts about watching these movies. The set design and costume design is always incredible. JJ Abrams and his team of writers never fail to create beautiful and intriguing environments for these characters to explore and the creativity behind these worlds is exciting.
And of course it is all done with top notch visual effects. Today, with films like "Transformers" and "Avatar" it is difficult to really stand out in the visual effects game. But "Into Darkness" succeeds in doing so. And not just with the different planets and alien creatures. The shots of space, the big battles between ships, everything looks spectacular.
But now onto the heart of the film--the characters. One of the great things about 2009's Star Trek was that it did a wonderful job of introducing all of the classic characters, with their one-liners and all. It was such a big part of the film and was key in its success. Here, in this sequel, there is no need to introduce any of the characters so many of them, such as Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and Chekov take a backseat and are not seen or developed nearly as much as they were in the first film.
That being said, the dynamic relationship between Kirk and Spock is as entertaining and interesting as it always is. Even after years and years of the franchise's existence, it seems that writers continue to develop these characters in ways that never fail to hold an audience's attention. Of course this is helped by the two great performances by the leading actors...which brings me to my next point.
Two words: Benedict...Cumberbatch! Words can barely describe how talented this man is. I mean, can he please play every villain for the rest of time? I am convinced that just the sound of his powerful voice could send Darth Vader running. And while I could probably write a whole other review just about his portrayal of John Harrison, a villain with a mysterious past (which some of you may have guessed from previous speculation) I think you get the point. His acting was incredible, perhaps the biggest and best reason to see this film.
In my opinion, the sci-fi genre is the best out there. The story telling is usually top-notch, the characters are exciting, and the action is entertaining to say the least. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is no exception. It has everything a Trek fan could want and more, and you certainly don't have to be a fan to enjoy this great piece of sci-fi storytelling. And while it may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, it is still well worth your time. I give it four stars out of four.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Before I tell you, let's go over a quick preview of the plot. We are taken back to the Starship Enterprise on another adventure to some distant planet. Unfortunately for Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) his actions on this mission result in him being stripped of his position as Captain and his ship is given back to Commander Pike (Bruce Greenwood). Well obviously this can't last for long, because a dangerous new threat presents itself when a man named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) makes deadly strikes against Starfleet. Kirk is quickly reinstated so that he, Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the rest of the crew of the Enterprise can go after this terrorist and bring him to justice, dead or alive.
One of the great things that has always existed for Star Trek is what you hear in the iconic monologue that includes these words, "To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." This is one of my favorite parts about watching these movies. The set design and costume design is always incredible. JJ Abrams and his team of writers never fail to create beautiful and intriguing environments for these characters to explore and the creativity behind these worlds is exciting.
And of course it is all done with top notch visual effects. Today, with films like "Transformers" and "Avatar" it is difficult to really stand out in the visual effects game. But "Into Darkness" succeeds in doing so. And not just with the different planets and alien creatures. The shots of space, the big battles between ships, everything looks spectacular.
But now onto the heart of the film--the characters. One of the great things about 2009's Star Trek was that it did a wonderful job of introducing all of the classic characters, with their one-liners and all. It was such a big part of the film and was key in its success. Here, in this sequel, there is no need to introduce any of the characters so many of them, such as Uhura, Bones, Scotty, and Chekov take a backseat and are not seen or developed nearly as much as they were in the first film.
That being said, the dynamic relationship between Kirk and Spock is as entertaining and interesting as it always is. Even after years and years of the franchise's existence, it seems that writers continue to develop these characters in ways that never fail to hold an audience's attention. Of course this is helped by the two great performances by the leading actors...which brings me to my next point.
Two words: Benedict...Cumberbatch! Words can barely describe how talented this man is. I mean, can he please play every villain for the rest of time? I am convinced that just the sound of his powerful voice could send Darth Vader running. And while I could probably write a whole other review just about his portrayal of John Harrison, a villain with a mysterious past (which some of you may have guessed from previous speculation) I think you get the point. His acting was incredible, perhaps the biggest and best reason to see this film.
In my opinion, the sci-fi genre is the best out there. The story telling is usually top-notch, the characters are exciting, and the action is entertaining to say the least. "Star Trek Into Darkness" is no exception. It has everything a Trek fan could want and more, and you certainly don't have to be a fan to enjoy this great piece of sci-fi storytelling. And while it may not be as fresh and original as its predecessor, it is still well worth your time. I give it four stars out of four.
"Star Trek Into Darkness" has a running time of 132 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Iron Man 3
Marvel Studios hit the jackpot back in 2008. Thanks to the supremely well-casted Robert Downey Jr., the first "Iron Man" became a blockbuster hit and kicked off Marvel's long road that ended (kinda) with last year's "The Avengers" which now holds the record for most money made in the opening weekend (over 200 million). Now Marvel is entering what they call Phase 2, the period between The Avengers and The Avengers 2 which opens in 2015. The first film in Phase 2 is the third installment of much loved Iron Man series. But with a director change and high expectations from The Avengers, can Iron Man 3 succeed?
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Well as I just said, the events of The Avengers have impacted the world big time, and the billionaire hero Tony Stark (Downey) isn't coping very well. Instead the events, which included him nearly dying by flying through a wormhole into space, have caused Tony to have some serious problems with post-dramatic stress and nervous breakdowns. And as unfortunate timing would have it, there is a terrorist who calls himself The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) who has begun to attack the US and other countries with vicious bombings. Plus, he might be in leagues with a scorned business rival of Tony's, Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) whose nanotechnology has the power to create super powered individuals. It's a nasty combination, and when Tony is stripped of all his armor he must go back to his inventive and cunning roots to help him remember that, suit or no suit, he is Iron Man.
Now let me say first to not expect to see any of Tony's teammates from the Avengers present in this film...this is all Tony Stark's story. And that is a good thing. Marvel needs to prove that they can make films about just one of their characters that can be just as interesting as when all the heroes are together, and I believe that they accomplished that with "Iron Man 3." This film is without a doubt one of the most characters driven comic-book movies in years. It's not focused on the action or CGI set pieces, but the character of Tony Stark, and it's wonderful how much his character was able to be developed in his fourth appearnce in a movie.
Yet, there is a little problem for me, and that problem is this: Tony Stark is a different character. After the Avengers he has really changed. He is no longer the fun-loving, care free playboy that we met in the first Iron Man. Now he is more serious and in the end, it's harder to enjoy the character because of it. The way they handled his feelings post-Avengers was smart with his post dramatic stress, etc. but the Tony Stark in the first two Iron Mans and The Avengers is who we fell in love with...not this Tony Stark.
But for all of those action junkies out there who are reading this wondering if there is any action...there is. In fact there is more action than in the other two, which is impressive seeing that there was also a lot of character development (of course the film was about 30 minutes longer than the others as well). Indeed there are a few exciting action sequences including an explosive finale that far outdoes the finales of the previous two.
And Robert Downey Jr. does shine once again as the leading man. His quick, witty dialogue and more seriousness than before continued to bring life into the Iron Avenger. Beside him are two very well casted villains, Kingsley and Pearce. Kingsley gave it his all (as usual) in the role as the mysterious Mandarin and Pearce brings a memorable and sinister persona to his character.
Here to my biggest issue with the film. And it's hard to really explain myself in my point because to really explain it would spoil a few surprises, and one big surprise, that is in store for the viewers. So I will just say this: when you have over fifty years of comic book history to draw from...DON'T take a popular character and totally butcher them with new ideas and DON'T make up new characters when you have perfectly good ones from very successful comic book lore. Iron Man 3 did this in several different cases...and I didn't like it.
At first it was hard to come up with a clear answer to what I thought of Iron Man 3 because it is so radically different from the first two films. It has what may seem to some like a different Tony Stark, a few unneeded plot twists, and absolutely no AC/DC. But the positives began to go through my head. The film boasts great performances by all, a surprising amount of character development, and satisfying action. Perhaps Marvel is seeking to make their sequels in Phase 2 more unique than the traditional super hero film. Iron Man 3 certainly was...and I can appreciate that (but please Joss Whedon bring the original Tony back for The Avengers 2). I give it three stars out of four.
Iron Man 3 has a running time of 130 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sci-fi action and violence throughout and brief suggestive content.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Pain and Gain
Throughout the years of reviewing films, there have not been many movies that ended up confusing me. Now I don't mean plot wise, there have been many films such as "Inception," "Total Recall," or "Minority Report" and have provided plenty of my confusion in my mind. I mean the film as a whole being confusing to me. Being confused by decisions made by directors or screenwriters, confused by ways an actor attempts to portray a character, or, in the case of "Pain and Gain," confused why a movie
even exists.
The very scattered plot of director Michael Bay's latest action comedy is based around a true story in which three Miami body builders led by Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlburg) attempt to rob a rich client of his wealth so that they can help "make America a better place." After a few failed attempts, the three kidnap him and interrogate him until he signs away his riches to the three men. The later half of the film then shows how they use this new acquired wealth and how in the end, it leads to their very downfall (don't worry, from the very beginning you know how the film is going to end).
But make no mistake, this is no Robin Hood story, quite the opposite actually. In fact, allow me to give a little more insight on the true story around which Bay has created his new piece of popcorn eye-candy. The film is based off of newspaper articles from 1999 that told that story of the "Sun Gym Gang." This gang brutally kidnapped, tortured, and murdered several victims in order to steal their money. Not a nice thing to hear about right? Well, Michael Bay must have thought the opposite because in his film, he tries to make the story of these criminals (two of which are currently on death row in Florida) into a comedy and tries to make these killers into heroes. That is more disturbing then anything I saw in the film...which is saying something.
Now I will give Bay a little credit because "Pain and Gain" does have a little more thought and commentary than the "Transformers" films that he has spent his time on for the majority of the last decade. The film serves as a commentary on the American Dream and many of the ideas and dialogue spoken by the characters can give way to some discussion on work ethic and the idea of the American Dream itself and how to properly and improperly work to attain it. Unfortunately, the fact that the film contains little to no redemptive value all but ruins the value of any commentary that film seeks to provide.
It isn't the case of bad acting, Dwayne Johnson does a great job of playing a Jesus-loving ex-convict that steals every scene he is in with his jokes and persona. It isn't that the script if full of cliches or corny dialogue, in fact the script itself was clever. But while there are a lot of little problems with "Pain and Gain," problems that seem present in every Bay film (the plot drags thirty minutes too long, the story is plagued with unnecessary and vulgar sexual content and humor, uneven pacing etc.), the real problem lies in the heart of the film...or lack thereof. Though this film is billed as a comedy, I could only leave it feeling more disturbed than humoured. And yes...the whole film is still just confusing to me. I give it one star out of four.
"Pain and Gain" has a running time of 129 minutes and is rated R for bloody violence, crude sexual content, nudity, language throughout, and drug use.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
G.I. Joe Retalliation
The first modern "G.I. Joe" film that was released back in 2009 had a few things going for it. It had some great action sequences, an awesome ninja, and a "rising star moment" for the now very popular Channing Tatum. Overall though, the cheesy popcorn flick was critically panned and only moderately successful. Therefore I was relatively surprised when they announced a sequel. However I was very excited by the news that Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and Bruce Willis would help reinvent this sequel into a possible improvement on the original. But did they succeed?
Plot wise, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Zartan, one of the leaders of the evil organization known as Cobra, has used nano-technology to disguise himself as the President of the United States (both of these characters are portrayed by Jonathan Pryce). In his plan to break Cobra Commander out of prison, Zartan must first use his Presidential influence to wipe out the G.I. Joe division by framing them with treason. And after a deadly missile strike, all of the G.I. Joes are left dead....except for three, one of them being Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson). Along with his two companions that do nothing to move the plot along, the three remaining Joe's must stop this new plan of Cobra before they unleash devastating nuclear weapons.
Now "Retaliation" is almost like watching two films because while all of this is happening, the amazingly awesome ninja known as Snake Eyes (Ray Park) is on a mission of his own to hunt down his enemy, Storm Shadow(Byung-hun Lee). Storm Shadow, who is also a member of Cobra, is responsible for breaking Cobra Commander out of prison and he might know things that could help the Joes get the upper hand. These two plot lines of Roadblock and Snake Eyes eventually come together in the end of the film.
Now first off, props to Dwayne Johnson for being the go to guy for starring in sequels to films and making them better. Johnson's appearance in the fifth "Fast and Furious" film helped give the franchise its most successful entry in years, and later he appeared in the sequel to "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and that movie also outperformed its predecessor. It seems that Johnson has done it again with "G.I. Joe." He is a great action star and brings the same likability and intensity that he usually brings with him to the role of Roadblock as well (even though he does not speak in rhyme like his character did).
The Rock is one reason to see the film, the other reason is Snake Eyes. This silent ninja is one of the coolest action characters out there which is why it is a shame he wasn't in more of the film. Every action scene with his character is a thrill to watch and it's always great when a character makes an impression without speaking a word of dialogue.
Unfortunately for the most part, my thoughts on this sequel are very similar to my thoughts on the original. The action might be a lot of fun by it is help captive to several elements, the first being over-the-top plot elements. Now I can handle a lot of things in a popcorn flick, but when Cobra Commander blows up the entire city of London, and probably towns around it, that is when I start shaking my head in disapproval.
Another thing that got on my nerves were pointless characters...way too many of them. I already mentioned how Roadblock's two companions are pretty much useless and do nothing to move the story along, I wish it had just been Roadblock and Bruce Willis' General Joe who really was not in that much of the film (much like "Expendable 2," he was used more for ticket sales). And on the Cobra side of things, I know they needed a "big guy" to fight the Rock, I just wish it could have been a more interesting character than Firefly...I wish it could have been Destro.
Which brings me to my next point, perhaps the thing that for some reason annoyed me the most. For some crazy reason, the director decided to give poor old Destro the cold shoulder and not even include him in the film. He gets a second of screen time, being held inside a tube beside Cobra Commander, only to be told by the Commander, "You're out of the band," a line that made my cringe and wonder if that was really Cobra Commander under the mask. Well, hopefully "G.I. Joe 3" which has already been announced, will see the return of the number two cobra baddie.
And yes the dialogue is cheesy, but you know what, it's the same way with"Transformers" saga, "Van Helsing," and a bunch of other action films that I still enjoy anyways. I can put aside the cheesiness, and most of the other problems with the film (except for Destro not being in it). In the end, I did not walk out of "Retaliation" feeling disappointed, nor did I walk out particularly impressed. It is an action film that stations itself in the realm of Hollywood mediocrity. But kids will love it, and if you love some great action you will have a good time as well. I give it two stars out of four.
"G.I. Joe: Retaliation" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.
Plot wise, "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Zartan, one of the leaders of the evil organization known as Cobra, has used nano-technology to disguise himself as the President of the United States (both of these characters are portrayed by Jonathan Pryce). In his plan to break Cobra Commander out of prison, Zartan must first use his Presidential influence to wipe out the G.I. Joe division by framing them with treason. And after a deadly missile strike, all of the G.I. Joes are left dead....except for three, one of them being Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson). Along with his two companions that do nothing to move the plot along, the three remaining Joe's must stop this new plan of Cobra before they unleash devastating nuclear weapons.
Now "Retaliation" is almost like watching two films because while all of this is happening, the amazingly awesome ninja known as Snake Eyes (Ray Park) is on a mission of his own to hunt down his enemy, Storm Shadow(Byung-hun Lee). Storm Shadow, who is also a member of Cobra, is responsible for breaking Cobra Commander out of prison and he might know things that could help the Joes get the upper hand. These two plot lines of Roadblock and Snake Eyes eventually come together in the end of the film.
Now first off, props to Dwayne Johnson for being the go to guy for starring in sequels to films and making them better. Johnson's appearance in the fifth "Fast and Furious" film helped give the franchise its most successful entry in years, and later he appeared in the sequel to "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and that movie also outperformed its predecessor. It seems that Johnson has done it again with "G.I. Joe." He is a great action star and brings the same likability and intensity that he usually brings with him to the role of Roadblock as well (even though he does not speak in rhyme like his character did).
The Rock is one reason to see the film, the other reason is Snake Eyes. This silent ninja is one of the coolest action characters out there which is why it is a shame he wasn't in more of the film. Every action scene with his character is a thrill to watch and it's always great when a character makes an impression without speaking a word of dialogue.
Unfortunately for the most part, my thoughts on this sequel are very similar to my thoughts on the original. The action might be a lot of fun by it is help captive to several elements, the first being over-the-top plot elements. Now I can handle a lot of things in a popcorn flick, but when Cobra Commander blows up the entire city of London, and probably towns around it, that is when I start shaking my head in disapproval.
Another thing that got on my nerves were pointless characters...way too many of them. I already mentioned how Roadblock's two companions are pretty much useless and do nothing to move the story along, I wish it had just been Roadblock and Bruce Willis' General Joe who really was not in that much of the film (much like "Expendable 2," he was used more for ticket sales). And on the Cobra side of things, I know they needed a "big guy" to fight the Rock, I just wish it could have been a more interesting character than Firefly...I wish it could have been Destro.
Which brings me to my next point, perhaps the thing that for some reason annoyed me the most. For some crazy reason, the director decided to give poor old Destro the cold shoulder and not even include him in the film. He gets a second of screen time, being held inside a tube beside Cobra Commander, only to be told by the Commander, "You're out of the band," a line that made my cringe and wonder if that was really Cobra Commander under the mask. Well, hopefully "G.I. Joe 3" which has already been announced, will see the return of the number two cobra baddie.
And yes the dialogue is cheesy, but you know what, it's the same way with"Transformers" saga, "Van Helsing," and a bunch of other action films that I still enjoy anyways. I can put aside the cheesiness, and most of the other problems with the film (except for Destro not being in it). In the end, I did not walk out of "Retaliation" feeling disappointed, nor did I walk out particularly impressed. It is an action film that stations itself in the realm of Hollywood mediocrity. But kids will love it, and if you love some great action you will have a good time as well. I give it two stars out of four.
"G.I. Joe: Retaliation" has a running time of 90 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of combat violence and martial arts action throughout, and for brief sensuality and language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)