Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Directed by: Justin Lin

IMDB Page

Star Trek 3: Beyond the Fast and the Furious 8 is the latest Trek Film in the rebooted JJ-verse of faster-er, more explosion-y, screamy, punchier Star Trek films. In this film, bad man wants revenge. Enterprise and co. are sent to stop the bad man. The enterprise is destroyed, leaving Kirk and the rest of the crew to stop bad man before he does bad thing, because revenge. 

(Note: Don't get mad at me about spoilers, the trailers already gave away everything. There will be one spoiler I'll stick at the very end )

But seriously this time. Star Trek: Beyond follows the crew as they are left marooned on a planet. Their ship is destroyed, leaving the crew with their wits and scrounging abilities to escape captivity and stop an evil alien terrorist before he attacks a Starfleet base. 

Star Trek: Beyond was an enjoyable film on a very superficial level. I like to judge these new Trek films as just generic space action movies, because you'd never be able to sell a "real" Trek movie that wasn't an over the top, supercharged action film. So on those merits, it works. Although this entry sometimes feels like its trying to do two things: Be an action movie and be an actual Star Trek movie. There's all of the action, punching, screaming, revenge-y bad man, and explosions that we've come to expect in this new series. And then there's some actual moments and images that feel like Star Trek. Like the look of the alien planet that the crew finds themselves marooned on. It looks like a supped up version of some corny alien planet right out of the 60's TV show. Shots of all of the colored uniforms on the planet when the crew was imprisoned looked cool.  There was lots of more neat and funny character moments. More of Bones and Scotty, whom I like way more than Kirk and Spock in this new series. They do try to tack on a scene where Sulu is revealed to be gay in this universe. It feels silly and pandering, something George Takei has even given the film criticism for. 

The rest is... Well, the same as the last two films. It was kind of laughable of how the villain was just another random guy with anger problems who wanted revenge against Starfleet for some reason. Nero, the villain from the first film, was a random guy who was angry and wanted revenge. Totally not Khan who ended up being Khan was a random guy who wanted revenge, except it was dumb that he did because Kirk and co. never met him before in this rebooted universe like they originally did in the TV series. In addition to Revenge man, they have also added a Marvel style MacGuffin to prod along the plot in the first few scenes. This movie also tries to do a plot twist that is both stupid, lacks any weight or consequence, and was literally given away in the trailer. It even has a laughably bad enhance, ENHANCE, E N H A N C E scene. 

The action, while well shot and visually good looking, is tiring after even just the first third of the film. However, just having good looking action shouldn't get you props these days. Its normal for a $175 million blockbuster to have good looking effects and action. But, it gets tiring. Every punching fight has to last 10 minutes. Every character appears to be some kind of martial arts expert. Fights lack any real weight to them and feel overly choreographed. 

Bottom line- 3/5- It had more good character moments and more fun than the last entry, but its so, so stupid. 

SPOILER BELOW 

I never thought there would be anything more stupid than Jeff Goldblum using his old timey Windows laptop to destroy an alien fleet. This movie destroys an alien fleet/swarm with the Beastie Boys. They literally play the Beastie Boys really loud and all of the alien ships explode. They plug a boom box into the ship, turn on the Beastie Boys, and alien ships start exploding in sync with the music. 

"You're welcome"- Tim Burton

District 9 (2009) Review Update

Directed By: Neill Blomkamp

IMDB Page

I know I've reviewed this movie in the past. I've re-watched it recently and had some more feelings I'd like to mention. You can read my 5-year-old review here if you want to hear me just gush about it. My feelings have changed slightly. I still like it, I like it a lot and it remains in my top five movies.

My new thoughts have more to do with the director than the film itself. After seeing D9 for the first time I was super excited with what Blomkamp would do in the future. He's done two more films, as you're probably aware, Elysium and Chappie. Elysium was somewhat disappointing if meh/ok action movie. Chappie was kind of a mess. I went back into watching D9 with these other two films in the back of my mind. What flaws there were in D9, kind of a simple main plot, hollow villains, social commentary as subtle as a sledgehammer to the forehead, some odd character choices, all were much more apparent to me than the first few times I saw D9. When the main villain proclaims with a maniacal laugh that he "loves watching prawns die" I groaned when I'd never groaned in that spot of the movie before.  I noticed these same issues on a larger scale in his other two films. I tried hard to think of why D9 worked and Elysium/Chappie didn't. So what I did whatever any other self respecting loser movie nerd would do: I went and watched all of the behind the scenes special features.

District 9, like many films by first time directors, was made on a modest budget with a lot of guerrilla style film making involved. Lots of location shoots, lots of improv on part of the main actor and his co-stars, and lots of budget limitations that limited the overall scope. I noticed Blomkamp commenting in one of the special features that D9 was a very stressful shoot because of the lack of planning and concrete script. He later says that he would "never make a film like that again". That "everything would be planned out". And then I was disappointed.

Sometimes, the best film making comes out of adversity. Making a new, original idea on a modest budget forces you to make compromises. It forces you to listen to others ideas, consider other options and change things on the fly. Imagine if George Lucas had already been a sellout hack fraud a famous, successful director before he decided to make Star Wars. Imagine if James Cameron had conceived and filmed The Terminator in 2009 on a $240 million budget. They would have been totally different movies. They were shaped by time in which they were made and circumstance as much as they were by the writers and directors.

Blomkamp seems to be a visual director. He makes excellent use of special effects in his films. The CGI creatures and tech in D9 blow me away even today; on a budget of pennies compared to Hollywood blockbusters that manage to churn out dull, cartoonish, suspension of disbelief shattering CGI garbage every summer. His other two films share the same visual language and good effects. Dirt, realistic looking robots, interesting world building. But the story, message and characters seem to have fallen apart.

I know I'm arm chair quarterbacking to the max here, I have no experience in film aside from watching them and offering my non solicited opinions. But I hope Blomkamp can pair with a good writer/producer team that has him making good movies again. Who knows, maybe he'll be the next Ridley Scott, who manages to turn out at least one OK movie for every three they do. We (I) can only hope.

The Revenant (2015)

IMDB Page

The Revenant will probably be remembered as the picture that finally won Leo an Oscar for his realistic and challenging portrayal of a betrayed frontiersman. Which, in my opinion, is kinda disappointing. The Revenant contains some of the most beautiful cinematography I can recall seeing, and its a shame that film-making gets overshadowed by the A list stars that partake in it. While the cinematographer and director both got Oscars as well, no one (except movie nerds) knows or even will talk about them. In the end, a private industry awards night doesn't, and shouldn't, influence what you like about movies.

The Revenant is a bleak tale that is Based on True Events*** about Hugh Glass (Leo), an 1820s frontiersman who is tasked with helping a fur trapping party navigate Native American controlled wilderness. They are attacked and forced to flee, leading to a sequence of events where Leo is mauled by a bear in an excessive 15 minute scene. He then is betrayed by one of his fellow pelt traders (Tom Hardy) and left for dead. The film has a couple of other meandering plot points, but in the end becomes just a simple revenge tale.

*** There once was a Guy name Hugh Glass and he wrote a letter about being attacked by a bear. 

What I liked :

The visuals. Early after its release, I heard all about how the budget ballooned and production was delayed due to the director's and cinematographer's insistence to only shoot in natural light. This sounded like a gimmick to me at first. Just because a film was difficult and challenging to make does not elevate it to high art. After seeing the film, I can say that it has a unique visual style I've never seen before. It almost feels like you are watching some type of nature documentary, not a fictional Hollywood production. During the opening shots I almost felt I could reach out and stick my hand into the flowing water on the screen. Seeing actors silhouetted by a setting sun during and extended, one take action sequence is enough to make you marvel at film making again.  Seeing it in HDR and 4K is also quite the treat.

The World Building. The Revenant is just as much a revenge death and misery genre piece period piece as it is a revenge story. The world building here is excellent. It gives a great impression of a frontier that hasn't yet been conquered. There is money to be made but only if you're willing to endure every day as a struggle to survive. Costumes and locations are spot on.

Tom Hardy. Deserved the Oscar more than Leo did.

What I'm Not Sure I Liked:

Hey, Film Academy, look at my long takes. Aren't they impressive? Giv Oscar Pls. I'm a sucker for long, unbroken takes. What makes me appreciate them even more is when they're hardly noticeable. They become annoying when the director seemingly draws attention to them in order to show off at how good of a director he is, which happens a few times. There is also some digital-editing trickery where the camera does a fast "woosh" movement to blatantly hide a cut. That kind of thing makes me roll my eyes a bit. It pulls me out of the movie more than just a standard cut would have done. If you're going to do long shots, doing them subtly is more impressive (this does happen a few times and the director deserves props for that.)

ATTACK OF THE BEAR. The CGI bear was pretty impressive. Not sure Leo needed to be mauled for 10 minutes straight for us to get the point though.

What I Didn't Like: 

Leo. While he's a perfectly fine any competent actor, I just never bought his character. I get his desire for revenge. I just don't get him as a character or person. Many of the supporting cast feel more lively in comparison, while Leo is just Leo with a funny accent that sometimes is there and sometimes isn't. "But!" I hear you cry "He ate real raw fish and deer liver! And hes a vegetarian! He's so committed!" Cool. I don't care. Like I said above, just because something is physically challenging does not automatically elevate it to high art.

The Son/Wife Flashbacks. They were kind of silly and really didn't flesh out Leo's character at all. You could have saved 20-30 minutes in run time and made this a leaner, faster paced revenge story. I feel that these sequences throw off the pacing a bit and bloat the run time.

Bottom Line: 4/5 Its a competently told, beautifully shot revenge story that was over-hyped with Oscar buzz and conservative bloggers claiming that film contained a bear-rape scene.

Chappie (2015)

IMDB Page 

Never before have I written about a movie that made me feel so conflicted. Neil Blomkamp has made only one film, District 9, that has been an overall critical success. His others, Elysium and now Chappie, have been generally critically panned. Chappie follows those two films with a very identical visual language and theme. I wanted to like Chappie desperately, but it ends up being more of a hot mess than an enjoyable film.

Chappie follows the story of a robot designer, Deon (Dev Patel), working for an international arms company. That company has hit it big selling mechanized “scouts” to augment South Africa’s fledgling police force. Crime is falling, and large sums of money in the form of government contracts are rolling in. It feels very Robocop, right up to the giant two-legged robot laden with a bunch of guns that still doesn’t quite work right. Deon wants to focus his efforts on creating the world’s first true artificial intelligence but is rebuffed by his corporate boss. Hugh Jackman plays a bad guy this time, and seems to enjoy being cartoonishly evil for a change. Sigourney Weaver also shows up to read lines and collect a paycheck. Eventually, the AI robot does get made, but things go awry when he is kidnapped by two gangsters looking for a means to pull off a big heist.

We’ll start off with the good. One thing Neil Blomkamp does well is style and atmosphere. His movies always have a certain level of industrial grit to them. Two of them take place in inner city slums of South Africa, while one takes place in a futuristic slum of Mexico that looks just like a modern day slum of South Africa. The tech looks really neat, the robots in this film have a great design, even if they feel a bit recycled from Elysium. (I imagine that there’s some credence to the idea that all of Blomkamp’s movies take place in their own shared universe). The effects for the robots are also fantastic. Its nearly impossible to tell if they are CGI or some type of practical effect at any given time. Some of the action scenes are fun.

Unfortunately, that’s about it. My biggest issue with the film was the South African rap duo Die Antwoord, which play two gangsters that kidnap Chappie the robot. They have a huge role in the film, and are mostly just really super obnoxious. Every scene they are in is cringe worthy. I can imagine some others being forced to turn this movie off. Not to mention they were apparently a huge nightmare to the cast and crew, resulting in rewrites after certain actors refused to film scenes with them.

The plot, while trying to pretend it’s trying to do something interesting, really isn’t. It’s like a backwards Robocop: A police robot gains sentience, and must discover his humanity through conducting crimes. Or, if you will, a more violent South African remake of Short Circuit. I also wasn’t sure why an AI had to behave like an infant or child. I can understand having to learn to understand human motivation, but to have the robot start out like a literal babbling baby was an odd choice. There were a couple odd plot devices as well- Chappie is able to interface with a computer using a neural helmet designed for a human. If he doesn’t have any brains, how does it work? Why doesn’t he just plug himself into the computer? Are we supposed to believe it’s a “soul” detecting helmet? There’s some other head scratching scenes as well, including the silly computer code typed on a keyboard that makes the AI program run.

Bottom Line- 2 out of 5- Mostly style over substance, and mostly just loud noise instead of any type of intelligence. It’s a fun type of dystopia until you really meet your main characters. If you liked Blomkamp’s other films it’s at least worth a rent, but it’s the least strong out of the bunch.

Big Hero 6 (2014)

IMDB Page 

Like most movies these days, it takes me too long to get round to seeing them. Or it takes me too long to getting around to writing about them. In this case, it was the former. Its a fun, beautifully animated, and surprisingly emotional picture that deserves the praise it got. Big Hero 6 is a Disney adaption of a Marvel comic book. Which blows my mind, considering it there have been no solid sequel plans announced. Usually anything Disney multiplied by Marvel results in a spreadsheet of sequels and spin offs planned for out in detail for the next 15 years. 

Big Hero 6 takes place in the fictional city of San Fransokyo; a futuristic blend of two already visualy interesting cites. Young prodigy Hiro (Ryan Potter) is pulled away from a career of back alley "bot fighting" by his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney). After tragedy strikes, Hiro sets out on an adventure aided by the robot Baymax. 

I shouldn't have doubted the ability of a Disney animated picture to make be feel feelings, but it did. The trailers portrayed it to be fairly light hearted but it makes a pretty serious emotional turn right off the bat. (Note: I cried at the end of Toy Story 3). It manages to be the best of both Disney and Marvel; combining a fun adventure with plenty of heart and fun action. The animation and art direction are also fantastic. Baymax really steals the show, pulling plenty of heartstrings and providing plenty of the film's laughs. 

The plot isn't overly complex, and a lot of the beats in the third act can be predicted before they happen. However, the heart of the characters and the overall beauty of the visuals make up for this. 

Bottom Line- 4 out of 5- The best parts of a Disney animated pictured blended with the best action hero action Marvel has to provide. 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

IMDB Page

Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation is the 5th outing of crazed, rich cultist Tom Cruise as secret agent Ethan Hawke. This time, Hawke is up against another secret evil organization, only this time its secreterer and evilerer than before. Can Cruise (and friends) complete the mission? 

Well, yes, because that's how things work in these kinds of movies. What follows is a series of loosely connected set pieces that are enjoyable, but not nearly up to the level of sheer fun as the last entry in the series.

The plot is... well, typical for this type of movie. Bad thing happens. Secret agents get blamed. Secret agents must battle both good guys and bad guys to clear their name and stop more bad thing from happening. Set piece in exotic locale. Set piece in another exotic locale. Product placement! Another exotic locale. Motorcycle chase. Expensive underwater set piece. Climax. More product placement. Resolution.

In fact, the main thing that I noticed about this movie was all of the shameless product placement. Some of the things I noticed (Full list taken from brandchannel)

Airbus (A400)- The plane Tom Cruise dangles from on the poster.
BMW- Make sure the logo is in focus at all times
Dell- Lots of Dell Monotors and laptops with logos perfectly visible and centered in frame.
Microsoft Windows- Close up on screens, gratuitous. Shots that linger on surface tablets with large Microsoft logos for long amounts of time.
Nokia- Windows phones!
And plenty of others that I can't really remember. The biggest one do I remember, that I'm not sure many others would have noticed, is the Zoll X Series Cardiac Monitor/Defibrillator. Its used to revive Tom Cruise in one scene, and to knock out another character in the same scene. These big studio franchises are a big business, and I understand that. However, there is a point where the product placement becomes groan worthy and stands out a bit too much.

Revive your own action hero, starting at $15,358 MSRP. 

The mission impossible films, at least the last two, really survive on their unique tone. Its somewhere in between the Jason Borne modern, dark spy thriller; and the old-school, wacky 1970s era James Bond adventures. It keeps itself serious enough to keep us invested in the plot and its consequences, while at the same time being just tongue-in-cheek enough to keep the action fun and entertaining. While this outing was less fun than the Brad Bird directed Ghost Protocol, its still a serviceable outing. The main set piece, this time inside of a giant, water cooled computer core, certainly is thrilling. But its still no comparison to the Burj Khalifa sequence in the last film. While I'm sure it involved Tom Cruse risking his life in some kind of giant underwater pool it still ended up looking like a video game with all of the CGI spliced in. In contrast to the Burj Khalifa sequence, where the only thing that CGI was used for was to erase the wires holding the studio's $50 million plaything Tom Cruise in the air. 

Bottom Line- 3 out of 5: An enjoyable action film, especially if you like millionaire cultists Tom Cruise. Worth a rent, but not as fun as the last outing. 

Sicario (2015)

IMDB Page

Sicario is Spanish for “hitman” or “assassin”. I learned this from watching the trailer. For the majority of the film, I was waiting to find out what its significance was. It paid off in a very slow, tense, and anxiety ridden way that subverted the usual type of plot twist that tries way too hard to “blow your mind”.

Sicario starts out by using tropes we’re very familiar with in crime dramas or police procedurals. Some examples:

-Rookie FBI agent recruited for extra special secret dangerous mission.

-Sassy partner/sidekick.

-Super clean, futuristic government offices with glass walls, glass tables and lots of flat screen monitors.

-Viewing security cameras in the back of an unmarked van.

-Black government SUVs with tinted windows.

-Mysterious, unconventional mentor.

-Don’t touch that, it’s going to- Yep, it blew up.

 It uses those tropes very well, though, and drops most of them by midway through the film. Emily Blunt stars as Kate, an up and coming FBI agent working the drug trade routes along the southern border. She is recruited by the unconventional (He wears flip flops in the office! So unconventional!) government agent Matt, played very well by Josh Brolin. The real star is Benicio Del Toro, who is a shady government “consultant” working on the team. I won’t go much more into plot details, because its best if you go in fresh, but the overall plot is relatively simple.

Where Sicario really shines is pacing and the building of tension. The score is extremely minimal, and gives a sense of dread the minute it starts. The type of tension is also something that’s rare now-a-days; it’s not “edge of your seat” in the “wow this is an exciting, fun adventure” sense, its edge of your seat in the “wow I’m scared, I feel sick to my stomach and am actually sweating right now” sense. Director Denis Villeneuve has demonstrated with great skill how he can impart a sense of pure dread on an audience.

My one and only gripe with the film is that the main character felt relatively flat up until the third act. She just goes along for the ride, literally, for the first 40 minutes of the film. This is explained away in the end but sort of feels unrealistic to add an FBI agent to your team just to have them do nothing. Blunt plays the character very well, and an arc is apparent by the end of the film. Josh Brolin does a good job in his role, but is overshadowed by Benicio Del Toro. Del Toro’s performance starts out benign and kind of mysterious, but slowly morphs into something you’d check under your bed for before going to sleep at night.

Bottom Line- 4 out of 5: Like I said, the plot and overall lesson of this film has been done many times before. How far will you go to stop the bad guys, will you risk resorting to immoral means to win, etc. Where Sicario really shines is in pacing, tone and casting. Overall a very good crime thriller that subverts some genre tropes to make for a memorable experience. 

Format Change... And hopefully more posts.

If you follow at all (and you probably don't), you know my posts here happen with the frequency of a lunar eclipse. I'm hoping to change that and begin posting more often again.

I'll also be including a slight format change in how I rate movies. It will still be in a 10 point scale, but this time I'll be splitting the 10 points into two different categories. The first will be the technical quality of the film- cinematography, editing, and effects to name a few. The second will be story, pacing, and characters. I don't think this will change the overall ratings I hand out, but it will help you differentiate between a film's technical failings and things that are just my opinion.

Trainwreck (2015)

IMDB Page

Directed By: Judd Apatow

Starring: Amy Schumer, Bill Hader (many other celebrities) 

I'll start out my review of Trainwreck by saying this: Its not usually my type of movie. You can look back at my older reviews full of sci-fi/action/corny remakes to realize that. I had no intention of going to see it, but was invited by some friends to a showing. So if rom-coms are your deal, maybe you'll appreciate it more than I did. 

Amy Schumer is a very funny standup comedian. Her show on Comedy Central is pretty funny and equally insightful. Trainwreck, on the other hand, is peak mediocrity. 

This stock image lady feels the same as I do. Three "mehs" out of five. 

Trainwreck follows the sexual exploits of Amy (Amy Schumer). Taught by her father that monogamy is unrealistic, she leads a life of one night stands. Trainwreck is played out as a "reverse" rom-com in the sense that its the promiscuous female that needs to be tamed by the noble male, not the other way around. Working for a magazine, Amy is assigned to do a story on a high profile sports medicine physician (Bill Hader). It quickly progresses into a one night stand instigated by Amy. The good doctor wants something more, so he seeks to tame Amy's wild streak and form a more serious relationship. 

Many of the promos marketed this as a "different" romantic comedy. Besides the role reversal I mentioned above, it is about cliche a rom-com you can get. Two unlikely souls meet. Fall in love. Fall out of love. Both have moments of somber introspection. Both realize they were meant for each other. Roll credits. To me, its a flaw. To others, it could just be a normal rom-com genre plot. Like I said, not usually my type of movie. 

But is it funny? Sometimes. Its usually funniest at its raunchiest, I could not have enjoyed this movie in the slightest if it had gone with a PG-13 rating. (If you ever wanted to see a 98% naked John Cena, this is your flick) Where the funny bits fall flat are the bit celebrity parts. Some of the cameo roles are not actors and it shows, big time. Other celebrities, actual actors, feel shoehorned in and serve no purpose, kind of rendering the scene pointless (I'm looking at you, Mathew Broderik). The presented style feels odd too, like they couldn't settle on the style of comedy they wanted to do. Sometimes its played straight, sometimes there's a narration, sometimes theres fourth wall smashing jokes that did nothing but make me confused. 

Honorable mention: Even if it was a bit part, I was surprised to see comedian Mike Birbiglia as Amy's Flanders-esque brother in law. He was pretty funny. 

Bottom Line- 5/10: Those who are die hard fans of Amy Schumer and rom-coms will appreciate this flick. Otherwise, its just another tired, if a bit raunchier than average, romanic comedy fare. 

Elysium (2013)

IMDB Page

Directed By: Neill Blomkamp

Starring: Matt Damon, Jodie Foster, Sharlto Copley, Alice Braga

Elysium is director Neill Blomkamp's second chance at directing a feature film. His first was 2009's District 9, which still remains as one of my favorite movies of all time. Elysium seems to share a lot of traits with D9: a gritty/dirty setting, a not-so-subtle political message, and badass looking future tech. So, now that Blomkamp has had a chance with a bigger budget and Hollywood star power; did he pull of another sci-fi masterpiece? 

Elysium is set in the year 2154. The earth has become a desolate wasteland, with future LA taking center stage looking like a sprawling third world slum. The ultra-super rich have retreated to a space station called Elysium. They have robot servants that cater to their every need, and space magic medical beds that can cure any aliment in seconds, including severe cases of "exploded off face". Mat Damon stars as Max, a reformed car thief and thug. Max suffers an accident at work, leaving him with only days to live. Rather than die in a slum on earth, max decides to enlist the help of his old gangster friends to get him to one of Elysium's magic medical beds. 

Elysium gets a few things right- Blomkamp comes from a visual effects background, and it still shows. All of the future tech is incredibly cool looking. Not only does it look slick, but it looks feasible; from the cobbled together tech of the gangsters that live in poverty, to the shiny (and scary) looking security droids of Elysium. You can tell a lot of attention to detail went into creating this world. The action scenes are also well done, even if they don't last that long. 

Apart from that, Elysium falls into a deep pit of mediocrity. The villains in the film, both the rich soulless bureaucrats and the evil mercenaries that protect Elysium, are totally one demential. There is more substance in the average Scooby Doo bad guy. Jodie Foster seems totally out of place as Elysium's defense secretary, it almost feels the only reason she was cast was so they had another cool name to put along side Matt Damon on the poster. 

The bad guys aren't the only ones that suffer from poor character development. Max, the main character, is little more than a blank slate. He has no arc, remaining totally flat throughout the entire film. He never has any kind of revelation or change of heart, and never really faces any difficult decisions. This rings true for the other protagonists as well. The film' message and conclusion is just as hollow as the characters. 

Bottom Line- 6/10- Blomkamp's second film is far more forgettable than his first. It has the same fun visuals and action, but fails on the most important things that make a movie: characters and story. 

Pacific Rim (2013)

IMDB Page

Directed by: Guillermo del Toro

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi

Pacific Rim is a rare film considering its competition this summer. Its a big budget summer action film that manages not to be a reboot, sequel, remake, or a haphazard adaption of a novel. Yes, it is inspired by the giant monster movies of the past, but it manages to feel quite original and refreshing. So, what do you get in Pacific Rim? Just what the trailers have shown you: giant robots punching the shit out of giant monsters, and vice versa.

Image Source
'Nuff said

The plot in Pacific Rim is a fairly simple ordeal. Monsters, dubbed kaiju, are coming through an inter demential portal at the bottom of the sea. After cities are destroyed, the nations of the world pool their resources to create jaegers; giant, 250 story tall humanoid robots operated by two pilots  All of this is explained in the first 5 minutes of the film. This is one of the good things about the Pacific Rim. It doesn't get bogged down in unnecessary backstory, nor does it try to make up too much fake science to explain how it's fictional technology works.

After years of fighting the war against the kaiju, the jaegers start to loose their effectiveness. The nations that fund them start pulling out of the project to pursue other options. What was once an army of robots is reduced to a handful, stretched thin trying to push back the increasing number of monsters. Instead of continuing the war of attrition they decide to take the fight to the monsters, and collapse the portal that is delivering them to our world. Pacific Rim is definitely a movie that requires the suspension of disbelief. However, its not a movie that will insult your intelligence, like some other popcorn-entertainment flicks.

In the character department, Pacific Rim is a mixed bag. Raleigh (Charlie Hunnam) is our main charter,  a washed up jaeger pilot. He is a pretty blank slate, which is a normal story telling technique to allow the audience to insert themselves into the story. He is a bit too blank, and comes off as bland and forgettable. Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) is a rookie pilot with an interesting back story that doesn't get fleshed out enough. The one that really leads the cast is Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), who is a veteran pilot and in charge of the jaeger program. Never since Independence Day have such corny, cheese filled lines been delivered with so much fervor. Other times, I'm not sure which accent the British actor is trying to use. J.J Abrams Charlie Day and Burn Gorman are a fun addition as the pair of kaiju researchers attached to the jaeger program.

Image Source

Of course, you wouldn't be able to have this movie without copious amounts of CGI. Overall, it works, with the effects giving you a good deal of how freaking big these monsters and robots are. During the battle scenes there are a few neat moments that bring everything back down to average human level. One in particular involves a robo-fist plowing through an office building. The action scenes were excellently filmed, and the shaky cam is kept at a minimum. If you see it, you'll want to see it on the big screen. I get the feeling it won't be the same on a home TV screen.

 Bottom line- 8/10. Overall, Pacific Rim manages to be a quite entertaining action flick, with a fair amount of heart to go along with it. Those who complain about their inability to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy a film about giant robots vs monsters may want to skip it. It has plenty of action/disaster movie tropes and cliches, but also does something a little new, and has a few genuinely emotional moments.

Looper (2012)

Director: Rian Johnson

Release Date: 28 September, 2012

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt

IMDB Page

Looper is... Hard to describe. Its a very interesting take on the very tired time travel genre. Even if you get a gist of its premise from the trailers and description; the plot manages to surprise on more than one occasion. It isn't a time travel movie, but more a movie about the what happens when time travel exists. If that makes any sense. 

Much, much more sense than this. 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a looper. Loopers are special assassins hired by the mob to eliminate targets without leaving a trace. You see, the mob has access to illegal time travel devices in the future. When they want to wipe someone out, the victim sent back in time, bound and with a hood obscuring their face, where a waiting looper executes them and destroys the body. They're paid very handsomely for this morbid task. The only catch is that, eventually, they'll have to "close their loop". They must execute their future self to eliminate any evidence of time travel being used. The reward is a huge payout and 30 years to live as they wish. 

Of course, it doesn't go as planned. Joe becomes increasingly concerned as many of his fellow loopers are retired. Rumors go around that the mobsters in the future are planning on getting rid of all of the loopers. Eventually, Joe is brought face to face with future Joe (Bruce Willis). For some reason future Joe isn't bound or hooded, and quickly over powers young Joe. He escapes, intending to kill a future murderous gang leader only known as "The Rainmaker" while he is a child. Young Joe must hunt his future self down or become a target of the mob himself. 

Heres where the plot could have become very cliche. I was expecting future Joe and young Joe to eventually team up together to take down the gang. But that never happens. There's no "good"or "bad" Joe either. They both have an end goal they wish to achieve  and are willing to go to any means to get it. This leads to a showdown that completely caught me off guard (in a good way). 

Plot and story aside, Looper comes together pretty slickly. The future world has a very dirty "tech noir" feel to it that harkons to films like Blade Runner. Looper is fairly violent, but doesn't revel in the violence. It would have been easy for them to erase the blood, half second of visible breasts,  and a handful of F-bombs to get a PG-13 rating. But the mature and complex themes remain, which I don't think would appeal to a PG-13 audience. The film looks great, with some pretty impressive action sequences. They're not grand in scale where everything explodes leaving half of the world scorched. The set pieces are smaller, but the action is more tense because you actually care about the characters and their world.

"Yes, I know pages 37-90 are blank. Thats where all the CGI robots and fake boobs go."

The characters and actors are great. Willis and Godon-Levitt make a great pair and their chemistry with each other is great. Pierce Gagnon has a role as a youngster that puts most of the grown up actors in this movie to shame. He plays a character that is too spoiler-y for me to talk about here, but the performance deserves serious recognition. 

There is some silly makeup that Gordon-Levitt wears to make him look more like a younger version of Willis that looks pretty awful from some angles. It is something the film could have totally left out and it wouldn't have made a difference. The film ignores the time travel paradoxes that could potentially bog it down, which keeps it somewhat not confusing. That being said, the plot may be had for some to follow.

Bottom Line: 9/10- Looper is a surprisingly entertaining sci-fi film. It is a shining example of what sci fi should be. Introduce an amazing technology and ask a simple "what if?" question. Looper isn't about shoving as much shiny computer generated future on the screen as possible. Looper is about how the world can shape a person. Its about how even one person can become two completely different people, willing to go to completely different means to get what they want. 

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Release Date: July 20th, 2012

Directed By: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Tom Hardy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anne Hathaway

IMDB Page

The Dark Knight Rises is arguably one of the most anticipated films of 2012. With the huge fan base and comercial success of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, its easy to see why. That also meant it had big shoes to fill. While it manages to create a fulfilling end to Nolan's gritty and dark Batman trilogy, it doesn't quite live up to its predecessor. 

Even with the box office boosting addition of scantily clad women. 

The Dark Night Rises takes place 8 years after the events of the Dark Knight. Batman/Bruce Wayne (Bale) has been in exile the entire time after taking the fall for the murder of Harvey Dent/Two Face and a few others. But things in Gotham look like they're turing around; organized crime is on the run, and things appear to be calming down after the caos that The Joker caused. Batman is soon brought out of his self imposed exile by a new threat, Bane (Hardy). As Batman is dragged out of hiding, there are a few more characters introduced. Among them are Selina Kyle, AKA Catwoman, who is a very capable thief that attempts to steal from Bruce. While she's never referred to as "Catwoman", its pretty darn obvious once she dons her night vison goggles that flip up to form a pair of ears (see above). Also introduced is Gotham police officer John Blake (Gordon-Levitt). Its later revealed that his first name is actually Robin. While he never becomes Batman's sidekick, but does serve a pretty important role in the film. Which is a good thing, because it keeps the film from becoming full of the cringe worthy silliness that was 1997's Batman and Robin. Also because Christian Bale refused to take the role of Batman if Robin ever appeared. 

In case you needed to be reminded. 

Bane is a ruthless mask wearing terrorist that seeks to destroy Gotham. He certainly is an excellent movie vilan, but doesn't quite match The Joker from The Dark Knight.  He is ruthless and menacing, and turns out to be Batman's first true match. I was mainly concerned about not being able to understand his dialogue, as he wears a mask that obscures most of his face for the entire film. I had no problems with this, his lines were clear and totally understandable. My biggest gripe with the character was that he wasn't as fleshed out as I would have liked it to be. That, and [SPOILER ALERT, skip to the next paragraph if you don't want a minor spoiler] his death was totally anticlimactic for such a menacing villain. 

Although it is excellent, it does have a few flaws. For a film that is the last in its trilogy, there are an awful lot of new characters introduced. It may be difficult to follow all of them without a second viewing. It also runs long, coming in at two hours and forty five minutes. There are a few plot holes that show up in the last act that are rather distracting. It would have been easy to explain them away, so it makes me wonder why they were left there. 

Bottom Line: 8/10- The Dark Knight Rises is a fine end to Nolan's Batman trilogy. It doesn't live up to The Dark Knight, but nearly matches it. Even on its own it manages to be a fine action film with dark dramatic overtones. Oh, and it looks amazing in Imax. 

Prometheus (2012)

Release Date (USA): June 8th, 2012

Directed By: Ridley Scott

Starring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Charlize Theron, Logan Marshall-Green

IMDB Page

Prometheus marks director Ridley Scott's return to the universe of the Alien films; the first of which he directed. Prometheus isn't another Alien film, although it shares some plot points, its a very interesting (and at some times disgusting) exploration in to the origins of the Xenomorph we all know and love. Oh yeah, and that origin of human kind thing too.

Prometheus follows the story of archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Tom Hardy look-alike Logan Marshal Green) as they search for the origins of human kind. After discovering a similar star chart among numerous ancient cultures, the team is recruited by the Weyland corporation to form an expedition to the stars. Meanwhile, Ancient Aliens guy finds his favorite movie ever.

On board the spacecraft, Prometheus, we meet other members of our crew: Michael Fassbender steals the show as creepy android David, Charlize Theron is a hard line corporate executive, and a handful of other cliched characters that serve very little purpose other than to be killed halfway into the film.

My name is grouchy-guy-with-mohawk. Yes, I die. 

Prometheus does start off at a slower pace. This isn't bad, its done just right. Its just enough to tug you into the story line. Scott's attention to detail is obvious, with almost every beautiful set being planned out to the tiniest detail. The second half of the film is considerably faster, as the action and gruesome on screen deaths speed up. The team discovers some interesting life forms, and things quickly go to hell. Bones are snapped, various bodily fluids are splashed about, faces are melted, and bodies are burnt to a crisp. They say that the original Alien film had a pretty obvious rape subtext, with the whole "man being violently impregnated" plot point. If Alien is about rape, Prometheus is a rape inside a rape, with a side of rape garnished with self administered abortion. 

They came to see Madagascar 3. They didn't know they were in the wrong theater until it was too late. 

The 3D effect in Prometheus is very easy on the eyes. It added depth to the film, but not much else. There was no gimmicky things that flew out of the screen at you.The focus was good and didn't cause any headaches. Its what 3D is supposed to be: an addition to the film that isn't obnoxious or over used. 

Bottom Line: 8/10: Prometheus looses some points due to a bland supporting cast. That, and the last 30 seconds where it is painfully obvious they're setting up for a sequel. Everything else is pure gritty, violent sci-fi goodness. If you go into Prometheus expecting a direct prequel to the Alien films, you may leave a bit disappointed. Prometheus is very much its own film, with a few clever tie ins to its parent franchise. 

Sucker Punch (2011)

Directed by: Zack Snyder

Starring: Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone

IMDB Page

So I have to admit: I'm no fan of Zach Snyder. I didn't really enjoy 300, and I couldn't finish Watchmen. The Dawn of the Dead remake was enjoyable, but not what I'd consider one of my favorites. This, combined with mixed reviews from friends, prevented me from going to see Sucker Punch while it was in theaters. Even after it arrived from Netflix, it say around for a while until I forced myself to watch it. So you've probably gathered this by now: I'm not a huge fan of Snyder's work. But the surprising thing is, while it wasn't what I'd consider a great movie, I found it pretty fun to watch. 

Sucker Punch follows the story of Baby Doll (Emily Browing). Her family is torn apart by the death of her mother. After being framed for the additional death of her sister, she is sent to a mental institute for women. Which turns out to be a brothel... Or something. Anyways, Babydoll and her comrades come up with a plan to escape from their prison. In order to execute their plan, they need to obtain a few objects that will aid them; like a map to find their way out, a key to unlock doors, etc.

This is where suckerpunch turns from a Life Time made for TV movie into a kickass over the top action flick: Each one of these objectives is represented by some crazy fantasy mission. Like a trench battle fighting steampunk nazi-zombie robots. Or a quest to steal a crystal from a firebreathing dragon. You get the idea.

                          Steampunk-nazi-robot-zombies. Also what Zack Snyder calls "subtlety".

Suckerpunch's best feature is probably its dense visuals. The fantasy scenes are always visually beautiful. The battle scenes also kick some serious ass. While there is definitely some very heavy use of CGI in these parts, it doesn't take away from the impact of the scenes. It actually helps with the campy, comic book style of whats going on. I found my self excited for what the next sequence would be, and disappointed when I knew they were all over.

But besides the visuals and stunning action sequences, there are quite a few flaws. The biggest being that the film probably won't appeal to a whole wide range of people. If you're not someone who likes this style of film, you'll most likely end up with a headache before its over.

"We're sorry about your migraine.. Perhaps more explosions will make you feel better?" 

Another flaw that bothers me, the biggest thing that keeps me from really liking Snyder's movies, is that it tries way too damn hard to be cool. It seems that literally every five minutes there is another slow motion montage of the action happening on screen. It feels like the film is just constantly reminding you "Hey. Look over here. See this? Steampunk-nazi-robot-zombies. Yeah. That's cool, huh? Look. You don't understand how freaking cool this is. Look. Look again. Look in slow motion. Isn't this hip? The kids are gonna love me. You old folks? You have no idea, cause you're lame. Guess what else? Freaking dragons. Look. Look at the damn dragon in slow motion. Look. Are you looking? Isn't it cool? Here's some more slow motion." 

If Suckerpunch were a person, it would be one of these guys. 

The acting was also another low point. By no means was it terrible, it just seemed flat compared to the outrageous-ness of all the action going on. Take the main character, Baby doll. She has the same facial expression for what feels like 90% of the movie. 

Zack Snyder calls this "consistency". 

Bottom Line: 6/10: Its a fun, no-brain-needed action flick, not much else. I may just be biased against Snyder, I'll admit that, but I found the same flaws here that I found in his other stuff. Suckerpunch has some pleasing visuals and impressive action sequences. It lacks in the character and story departments. And there is just way too many slow motion sequences. 

Red (2010)

Directed by: Robert Schwentke

Starring: Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, Hellen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker

IMDB Page

The film industry is lucky  Red came out  shortly after The Expendables. (Read  my review of that train wreck here) If it had not, I might have given up on going to the movies all together. Red managed to redeem the film industry of The Expendables' mistakes, and made me believe in campy-throw-back action movies again.

This is how douchebags say "thank you". 

RED is actually an acronym; Retired, Extremely Dangerous. Bruce Willis stars in the lead role as a retired black-ops CIA super spy. He lives in boredom and mediocrity, with the only joy he gets coming from telephone conversations with a woman who works in a pension office. Rather quickly , his is attacked at home by a band of government thugs. After kicking a few asses and taking a few names, he leaves to find out why the government he worked for is now trying to kill him. Along the way, he pulls a few of his old counterparts out of retirement.

The story isn't horribly original, and it can get pretty confusing, especially in the third act. Red makes up for the weak story line with lots of awesome characters. Of course, Willis is the usual wise cracking badass. Nothing new for him here, but he's good at it. Mary-Louise Parker gets a few good laughs as his reluctant love intrest. Morgan freeman and Helen Mirren are great as another two ex-agents pulled out of retirement.  Karl Urban does very well as the initially cold and calculating government agent sent to stop the REDs, whatever the cost. Out of all of this, my favorite character was played by John Malkovich. He is a mentally disturbed ex-operative, mostly due to the fact that he was fed LSD daily for 11 years when he worked for the CIA.

Seems perfectly stable to me...

Bottom Line: 8/10: Red has its flaws, mostly in the story department. But it sure as hell is fun, with plenty of campy action and fun characters to go around. If you're into action films, don't let this one slip past you. Even if  you thought The Expendables had ruined the gene for you. 

Repo Men (2010)

Starring: Jude Law, Forest Whitaker, Alice Braga

Directed by: Miguel Sapochnik 

IMDB Page

Repo Men is a sci-fi film that has a lot of good ideas. It starts out with a very interesting "what if" question, as many good sci-fi films do. The unfortunate thing is, thats the only thing it does well. Almost everything else about Repo Men is mediocre at best. 

Remy (Law) and Jake (Whitaker) work as repossession officials for a large corporation called The Union in the not too distant future. The only thing is, this company sells insanely expensive artificial organs to the sick and wounded. When people get behind on their payments, the repo men are sent out to recover the organs... In some of the most disturbing ways possible. From here, the story takes some very predictable turns. It manages to pull off one surprising twist, but everything else is cliché. It ends up being very disappointing because there is so many directions they could have gone with this- Instead of going for pure shock when organs are harvested in disgusting ways from innocent people. 

Should have gone with the PPO.....

The acting is another problem here. Its incredibly inconsistent. Sometimes Jude Law does a fair job, other times his lines come of as stilted and hollow. Whitaker just seems out of place in this whole film. Some of the secondary actors are much better than the lead cast, however, there are still no outstanding performances in this film. Some scenes are just pure awkward. One in particular involves lots of semi-nude making out, while the two characters slice each other open to scan their artificial organs. It just reeks of some really odd sexual fantasy.

Tarantino's foot fetish suddenly seems a lot less weird. 

Bottom Line: 4/10: It starts off with a good idea that is marred by bad everything else. The story can hold your attention if you're not too grossed out by the gore. There is a plot twist, which I'm not sure was intelligent or cheap...I'll just say it was interesting. Lots of questions are left unanswered, like why it seems that 80% of the population has needed an organ transplant. Don't go for this one unless you really want to... Unless you're a die hard sci-fi buff, chances are you won't enjoy Repo Men a single bit.