G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Review #1702: G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Cast: 

Dwayne Johnson (Marvin F. Hinton / Roadblock), Bruce Willis (General Joe Colton), Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Jonathan Pryce (Zartan / President of the United States), Byung-hun Lee (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Elodie Yung (Kim Arashikage / Jinx), Ray Stevenson (Firefly), D.J. Cotrona (Dashiell R. Faireborn / Flint), Adrianne Palicki (Jaye Burnett / Lady Jaye), Luke Bracey (Rexford G. 'Rex' Lewis / Cobra Commander; Robert Baker as voice), Walton Goggins (Warden Nigel James), Arnold Vosloo (Zartan), and Joseph Mazzello (Morris L. Sanderson / Mouse) Directed by Jon M. Chu.

Review: 

Do you remember G.I. Joe? All power to you then, because it has been essentially nine years since I last thought about it. G.I. Joe is a series of doll-I mean action figures that Hasbro began production on in 1964. There had been comics involving G.Is for decades, but Hasbro eventually came up with their own attempts at comics, with the most notable being a G.I. Joe series with Marvel Comics in the 1980s; an animated series also ran during that time that promoted the toy line and had its own film (which went from plans for a theatrical release to television after the failure of The Transformers: The Movie). At any rate, it should only make sense that a Hasbro property like this would eventually be turned into a live-action feature, seeing how Transformers (2007) turned out so "well". Five writers later, G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra (2009) came out to box office success amid ridicule from anybody looking for a good one to make fun of. I remember being twelve years old and seeing this movie in theaters only because I got a gift card to the movie theater as a present around that time,; I've probably seen that movie once or twice ever since, and its qualities haven't exactly improved since then. You don't really need me to tell you in a long spiel that it was a dumb movie, one catered to the tastes of script-logic akin to Transformers that had plenty of clunky moments.

So yeah, a sequel was warranted, and I guess it only makes some sort of arcane sense to get a director best known for dance movies to direct. The sequel was meant to be released in 2012, but Paramount Pictures (who in their odd wisdom wanted to do a reboot but not a reboot) shifted its release five weeks before its intended release because they wanted to convert the film to be shown in 3-D (because they wanted to make more money with a fad-I mean a great process for experiencing movies). Despite all of the hubbub, it was essentially just as successful as the original feature was (i.e. making back twice its budget). Eight years later, here we are talking about the release of a new G.I. Joe film...an origins story, which is amusing to think about (because hey, Transformers did it, so...). Anyway, this feature film was written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who were best known for their work on Zombieland (2009). You would think that making an ensemble cast movie series would mean that there is a bit of cast continuity between features...well, try again. Five cast members (Lee, Park, Pryce, Vosloo, Tatum) return from the previous film, and only two of them has a substantial speaking role as a hero (Park plays a mostly quiet ninja commando, but still). For a run-time of 110 minutes, this is a film that does the bare minimum in every department and flails slightly less than its predecessor in the art of balancing spectacle and the little thing they call "substance". Some movies can get away with being a fun time without having the greatest plot (like Commando, for example), but this is not one of those movies. There are not many sequels that are better than the first one that are also quite forgettable, but this sure is one of them. It is just a middling movie, one that fundamentally has no one great (or terrible) sequence to think about, because there are just a bunch of "eh" scenes with a plot that kind of floats around with a cast that doesn't have much footing to go around besides a few attempts at humor. Johnson surely seems like the kind of presence one would see coming to try and invigorate interest in a film, particularly since action seems to be right up his alley. While I can't say his performance is exactly anything good, he at least seems game for a movie with plastic ambitions at action with fairly solid composure; somehow, the filmmakers had the bright idea to kill off the lead guy of their first film with Tatum, and he looks about as interested as waiting for soup to cool off. Honestly, I can't tell which actor seems more in it for the money, Willis or Pryce (one gets to play the President and the other doesn't have to show up for almost a hour), and it is almost amusing to see them see them try to make these lines seem anything other than lines spoken by committee. I guess Lee does well here, in that he gets to a bit of swordplay and not have to wear a mask the whole time (as opposed to Park). The other members of the ensemble don't fare too well, seeming about as interested in talking action spiel as one would be interested in talking about the dynamics of why baseball is the greatest sport to follow to a bunch of Yankees fans. As a whole, what we have is a bland movie that goes boom a few times but never really goes farther than "do something!" in terms of maneuvering an interesting plot or characters beyond cliché. If one needs some sort of action fix in the modern era or need to waste time with people who should know better, at least make sure you check the whole totem pole of options before thinking about this one.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Man of Steel.

Review #1669: Man of Steel.

Cast:

Henry Cavill (Clark Kent / Kal-El), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Michael Shannon (General Zod), Kevin Costner (Jonathan Kent), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Laurence Fishburne (Perry White), Antje Traue (Faora-Ul), Ayelet Zurer (Lara Lor-Van), Christopher Meloni (Colonel Nathan Hardy), Russell Crowe (Jor-El), and Harry Lennix (General Swanwick) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and #1011 - Justice League)

Review:

"Am I a provocateur? A little bit. Is my job to make some pop-culture piece of candy that you eat and forget about the next day? Nah. I would rather fuck you up in a movie than make it nice and pretty for everybody."

What does one desire from a Superman story? Or more specifically, what does visualize when they hear the word? It can depend on what exactly sticks out the most in the world of storytelling, that much is for sure. Superman (1978) is undeniably the one film that stands out, this much is for sure. It still stands tall today as an influence that looms over the superhero genre. Superman, as we all remember, was created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, having tried to sell the idea to comic strip folks for five years that evolved from a vagrant-turned-telepath into the sensational hero that touched the hearts and minds of numerous readers for several decades. Over the next few decades, imitators and media adaptations of Superman would follow, which ranged from radio to television to film, all with their own perspective of what made Superman the great hero that all look up to as the ideal, one that could be described as more powerful than a locomotive or a fighter for truth, justice, and the American way, and so on and so forth. Every adaptation has their perspective of Superman, acting as a reflection of the time and standards. Consider the Superman shorts that were created by the Fleischers in 1941 - not only were the shorts fairly popular, they also proved an influence in moving Superman from merely a hero who could leap from place to place to having him just fly (the reason? It looked better in animation). Superman: The Animated Series (1996-2000) aspired to look like those short films in its animation while downplaying the character's power to an extent, which resulted in an underrated classic. The radio series The Adventures of Superman (1940-1951) featured the use of kryptonite as a weakness for the title hero before it was absorbed into the comic canon in 1949. The 1978 film adaptation was the first to introduce the 'S' on the costume as a Kryptonian crest (Superman: Birthright (2003-04), written by Mark Waid as the second origin story for the hero in the modern era, would take that and have Superman's crest represent a symbol of hope).

That film seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since that film is undeniably still the best adaptation of the character ever put to film, as Richard Donner achieved the verisimilitude that he felt was needed to capture the reality of the comic realm without falling prey to parody. Don't get me wrong, this film is fine, but it is somehow nowhere near what the first film managed to do with its spectacle and mythic draw of strength. Man of Steel will likely reflects its era just as much as the original film managed to do with in terms of sensibility and effects, which for better or worse does what it needs to do in the job job at bringing the character back onto the screen after far too many years away. The easiest question is to wonder just how far the ends will justify the means when it comes to infusing a darker sensibility to the most famous superhero in the realm of comic books into a film. For some, it will serve as a necessary evolution for Superman in the realm of film, setting itself apart from previous iterations as a setting stone to further usage from an auteur in Snyder. For others, it will serve as a ham-handed, self-righteous puddle, one that thinks that Superman merely needs a bit of edge and a peculiar usage of the snap zoom to get their kicks and say to the world, "Look! Superman isn't an overgrown boy scout!" (a producer, leading the development of trying to make the fifth Superman film, actually described him like that) with no irony detected. Snyder, has his own perspective within comic book adaptations, since he was previously at the helm for 300 (2006) and Watchmen (2009), which each are certainly distinctive in the perspective of adaptation in style for better or worse (the latter adaptation is probably more polarizing as an adaptation). Snyder felt that the thesis of the character was one where superheroes can't knock things around without consequences, and he would follow up with two further films with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016, which also includes an Ultimate Edition that added 30 minutes of footage to make a three-hour cut) and Justice League (2017/2021; Snyder would do a director's cut to restore the film to what he had intended prior to leaving production), although his plan of a five-film arc that would lead to the full potential of the character would not come into full fruition.

There is exactly one statement that can help sum up this film: It's a weird achievement to have made half of a good Superman movie in one whole movie (while running at the exact runtime as the 1978 film - 143 minutes). It has an interesting picked cast, and it certainly likes to hone its references to the canon of Superman, this much is for sure. David S. Goyer wrote the screenplay while co-writing the story with Christopher Nolan. It is likely the boldest average superhero movie to ever come through this decade, but it sure is a useful one to serve as a contrast to what one might see from other films of its ilk in that time. Cavill had a few film roles under his belt, although his best known role was a lead role with the television program The Tudors (2007–2010), although it should be noted that he actually was one of numerous actors that had been considered for the earlier attempt at reviving the Superman film series a decade earlier (the same can be said for Adams, incidentally). He certainly does a fine job, mostly because it actually seems distinct from what one has seen before while inviting curiosity that had been sorely missing from the anticlimax seven years prior. Granted, it is a bit shaky at first, because all folks need to find their gravitas with confidence - there eventually seems to be something there in earthy promise, although it seems more prevalent with the hero aspects more so than with Clark Kent. Adams has some of the tenacity needed to play the character, although the spark of wit seems more prevalent in the first half of the film more so than the second, which seems more a reflection of the film seeming to stick itself a bit in technobabble, although at least it invites the idea of seeing the grounded elements of Cavill and Adams. Shannon is the final key piece of the trio with the hardest tasks, one where you have to believe in some way has a point even in madness. In that sense, with a warrior-by-blood attitude that is handled by Shannon quite well, fierce but never completely off the deep end that serves as a great overall threat. Lane and Costner make up the Kent family with okay results; one wonders how that perception differs with someone who had seen Smallville (2001-2011), but I honestly I usually forget about the Kents (minus of course one scene, of course). It is Crowe who seems more memorable at any rate, standing in the shadows of Brando (at least without cue-cards this time) with that smooth edge that gets a bit more mileage than one expects (Zurer on the other hand is a bit more murky). Others do okay in support, such as the hint of Fishburne in dogged persistence or Meloni and his tough-guy charm (this may or may not hinge on how much Law and Order: Special Victims Unit hinges on one's favoritism list).

I will admit that there are quite a few gripes, ranging from playful to ones that make me roll my eyes. Zod make his first appearance in a film since Superman II (1980), and it will play right into a great trivia question of which Superman films don't feature one or both of either General Zod or Lex Luthor. They might be the most memorable villains in the Superman lexicon, but it still seems odd to not tap into further compelling adversaries (as evidenced by television adaptations of Superman such as the animated series and Smallville). Sure, they may not be as familiar in the lexicon, but it certainly strikes irritation with its choice of villain just like Superman Returns (2006) had done earlier (for the record, Brainiac would be the definite choice). At least you can say the film is a definitive vision of one director's idea of what the ideal of Superman represents. And then of course there are those two scenes that spark debate over exactly what should or shouldn't be done in a Superman story. I'm sure this isn't spoiling an eight year old film to say that the last scene with Cavill and Costner is the one that makes me roll my eyes more so than the death of Zod. There is a sense of hokeyness that somehow comes out in a show of trying to hide one's strength until they are truly ready that seems off-kilter. Heck, he saved a bus full of kids as a child, and the Kents seemed to have made that seem ordinary, so I doubt there will be that many shockwaves for a blur deciding to whip their father out of the way of a tornado (in any case, the death of one of the Kents is nearly inevitable in these origin stories). The occasional segues into non-linear storytelling will either help or hinder the idea of a layered hero story different from usual, so your mileage may vary. The savior narrative is the only other thing that seems more on the nose, and one can only get away with so much before it collapses in self-seriousness; it isn't the first time that this has been presented in Superman, since "creative consultant" Tom Mankiewicz stated how he fostered analogies between the story of Jesus with Superman and his father - you can roll your eyes at its attempt or just let it pass by with reverence/deference. By the time one gets to the climax, the thing that really draws on my mind is trying to make sure one has not succumbed to cut-scene syndrome within its stroke of action. The use of the snap zoom (i.e. a zoomed in shot during an action sequence) only will serve to demonstrate the duality of a director that can appreciated for kinetic action and style or ridiculed to the point that one can make a drinking game based on how many times it is used again and again. As a whole, it works enough in the basic department of taking certain risks with making a fair start to reigniting the flames of the pinnacle of all superheroes into film without bursting into a fiery failure or becoming a flamed-out mess of mediocrity, showcasing Snyder's interest for hard-lined realism in tandem with style and action to make a movie that will drive the curiosity of its admirers and detractors in the ways that matter most for as long as they make superhero movies that dare to be bold.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A Good Day to Die Hard.

Review #1609: A Good Day to Die Hard.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (John McClane), Jai Courtney (John "Jack" McClane, Jr), Sebastian Koch (Yuri Komarov), Yulia Snigir (Irina Komarov), Radivoje Bukvic (Alik), Sergei Kolesnikov (Viktor Chagarin), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Lucy McClane), Cole Hauser (Mike Collins), Aldis Hodge (Lt. Foxy), and Amaury Nolasco (Murphy) Directed by John Moore.

Review: 
"I have a warm spot in my heart for Die Hard...It’s just the sheer novelty of being able to play the same character over 25 years and still be asked back is fun. It’s much more challenging to have to do a film again and try to compete with myself, which is what I do in Die Hard. I try to improve my work every time. I get to do different things and look differently, and it’s still accepted, and people come out. It’s just an amazing thing.”

Sometimes one should just start with something cordial before the storm hits. After all, this is the fifth and presumably last installment in the Die Hard franchise, one that has had such irregularity with its sequels that followed since the original icon that came out in 1988 (a great action film and Christmas movie). Granted, I didn't hate any of the sequels, but I certainly grew up with enough viewings of the first three to see how much charisma and action can be carried with Bruce Willis as a star. Live Free or Die Hard (2007) is probably the one I've seen the least amount of times (one), but that didn't mean it was bad or anything, it's just a byproduct of not going around to watch modern films more than once (unless I really want to). So, here we are, with an R-rated Die Hard film again, and it happens to be the only one that is an entirely original work (the first two were loosely based on books, the third was an unused script and the fourth was a Wired article and a separate script) that was written by Skip Woods, writer of films such as Swordfish (2001) and The A-Team (2010). One working title was apparently "Die Hard 24/7", which I can only imagine would have been just as silly in whatever it would have to do in 24/7 mayhem (or a crossover with some number-related TV show that I've never seen). The director for this film is Irish director John Moore, a graduate of Dublin Institute of Technology that made his own short films and commercials alongside work for the camera before being brought in to direct for 20th Century Fox with Behind Enemy Lines (2001), with this being the fifth and last film Moore has made for the studio.

One knows they are in for some trouble when they realize it is only 97 minutes long. Every one of the previous films was two hours long, and that is likely because those actually seemed to have a useful structure built in that made for useful entertainment without being just a vehicle for action and cardboard. Besides, those films generally had a set-up of a man caught in the middle of violent crisis that is usually one's only hope, whether that involves terrorists on a building, planes stalling, robbing the Federal Reserve, or cyberterrorism. Now, we have a film that takes its cue from the last film in making it a family affair, now set mostly in Russia (or rather Hungary with location shooting) that finds itself involving McClane in a plot with the CIA and secret files involving Chernobyl, and hues of blues and oranges that will make one blur their eyes in agony. The film that comes from it isn't too much better, as it is the worst of the five Die Hard films without any doubt, committing the clearest sin imaginable: being just a bland action movie. Its attempt at blurring the lines with who its villain is alongside a middling father-son act mean that we have a muddy movie, one that might as well be turned into one of those "choose your own adventure" books or video games, being the equivalent of a three-day old cheeseburger with flat soda. One won't hate what they see play out on screen because they will probably be bored stiff by it instead. At the time of the release of this film, Willis was the same age as another icon at the end of his tenure in Roger Moore for A View to a Kill (1985). Strangely enough, I don't see this film receiving any sort of lingering campy sentimental push like that film has. Willis isn't quite at the point where he seems a bit too old to still be an action star, but he sure doesn't seem like he is having much to do here, doing a few quips that have the hitting power of one going through the motions. Courtney isn't too much better either, since one doesn't really feel (or care) about their bond as father and son and therefore just sees an action film that gives them a gruff attitude and not much else. Koch joins them for a time as the target of interest that has a resolution that is meant to be a surprise but is instead a yawning sigh. Snigir isn't too much better, because there really is nothing here to grab on to in scenery or with drama - so one can't find much to point and laugh with in bland popcorn. By the time the climax happens, I'm just trying to make sure my eyes don't strain from how murky it looks (no, cheating by simply turning the brightness all the way up won't help), and I can't imagine how a sixth film would have looked, honestly. Look, if you want to see things explode or people jumping through windows, you will likely find it done in better films, and they might seem less murky in enjoyment and/or the laws of physics. Truly, it should have ended after four films (or three). It comes, it goes, it bores, it snores, it stinks. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Her.

Review #1566: Her.

Cast:

Joaquin Phoenix (Theodore Twombly), Scarlett Johansson (Samantha), Amy Adams (Amy), Rooney Mara (Catherine Klausen), Olivia Wilde (Blind Date), Chris Pratt (Paul), Matt Letscher (Charles), and Luka Jones (Mark Lewman) Directed by Spike Jonze (#1308 - Being John Malkovich and #1533 - Adaptation)

Review:

“There’s definitely ways that technology brings us closer and ways that it makes us further apart — and that’s not what this movie is about. It really was about the way we relate to each other and long to connect: our inabilities to connect, fears of intimacy, all the stuff you bring up with any other human being.”

If you make four feature films in the span of fourteen years, one can only yearn to have the breadth of curiosity and interest generated by the ones done by Spike Jonze. Filmmaker in features, short films, music videos, this is the fourth feature film (and most current as of 2020) for the director that are interesting for their distinct features in terms of genre that nevertheless verge on the point of yearning to connect with something or someone. Jonze was inspired to do the script in part on the experiences that he had briefly involving a website where one could exchange messages with an artificial intelligence program - and he wanted to capture the excitement of that moment of interaction between person and AI that he wanted to see play out longer than a few minutes. To me, it reminds me of Cleverbot, which I remember getting a brief kick out of having a "conversation" with a program that relies on human input to do said speech (of course one could also just find familiarity with Siri, but one does not engage in references to Apple). In any case, what could be a starting point for some sort of farce or something strange with AI on the loose is actually a film not about the technology but instead about the connections we have and don't have in the modern sense.

What we have is a film about what it means to have romance in an age of technological differences that make it clear about just how one can square a romance up into a neat little package ready for delivery. In other words, finding something to appreciate and care for is one thing, finding someone to connect with and find a place in is another. Love can be passionate, fleeting, star-crossed, or all the other words to draw upon when making their own love story for film. None could have gone as strangely or as off-kilter as this could have been, and none prove as interesting to see play out in most of its execution as this film does. It isn't exactly the best feature that Jonze has made, but it certainly proves a worthy curiosity for what it sets out to do with its lived-in look and color scheme that creates an intriguing challenge for its main star and voice to prove worthwhile without being a weird duck. If one can find themselves making pen-pals with people miles away from them or find friends on the Internet in certain communities, I can see where you can go with a virtual assistant that can either just be an organizer of your stuff or have it grow into something more. 2013 and 2020 are more than just years to say in a sentence when it comes to connectivity versus what really goes on in the little hole we make for ourself and hopefully for others, perhaps now more than ever, where numbness could almost be thought of as fashion sense. With all of that in mind, Phoenix is exactly the one to make this come across with the instinct and integrity required here, one that is meshed in clay of numbness that grows upon a path with romance that we do at least see some sort of connection to - loving the voice from a box is more than that when you share a smile that isn't a pained movement. Johansson was brought in to replace Samantha Morton (who Jonze liked, but he felt that the film needed someone different) - she does what is needed in terms of running the vocal gamut that is quite caring and useful in carrying the film in gentle marvel without having to even bat an eye. Others contribute to the other degree of varying connectivity, whether that means a sparkful Adams or an honest Mara (when compared to what we view and then hear of her) and brief interludes with television presence Wilde and Pratt. What we have here is a film structured on what we see and believe when it comes to feelings that can be consuming just as quickly as they seem fleeting, and there really are no easy answers beyond trying to keep growing and not become stuck with all the other voices of other lost souls. With a 126 minute run-time, it surely makes for an interesting original work that will leave the viewer by its ending with a chance to go out and find their own place to sit upon and connect the dots for themselves.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Gravity.

Review #1565: Gravity.

Cast:

Sandra Bullock (Dr. Ryan Stone), George Clooney (Lieutenant Matt Kowalski), with Ed Harris (Mission Control), Orto Ignatiussen (Aningaaq), and Phaldut Sharma (Shariff Dasari) Directed by Alfonso Cuarón (#119 - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban)

Review:

"Every day, we thought: 'This is not going to work. It was a process of trial and error, and little, little hints of hope, and also a lot of mistakes. The only test screening that we had, months before the film was finished, was a disaster."

If you find yourself nearly reaching the age of 60, you can always look back upon the company you kept in the years that helped shape your path and hopefully enjoy the places it goes to in terms of dutiful interest. Alfonso Cuaron was born in Mexico City in 1961 to a family of dedicated individuals that included a doctor and biochemist for parents. He studied philosophy and filmmaking at the National Autonomous University of Mexico and (Centro Universitario de Estudios Cinematográficos, respectively. He started work behind the camera with short films alongside work in television by the time he was in his 20s that eventually led to getting a chance to direct his own feature. Sólo con tu pareja (1991) proved a worthy hit, which he directed/co-wrote/produced/co-edited, and it was followed by his first American production with A Little Princess (1995 - the first of three straight productions with him solely as director) and further films that received attention such as Y tu mamá también (2001) and Children of Men (2006). For this film, he served as co-producer, co-writer (with his son Jonás) and co-editor (with Mark Sanger).

It is a film that proved a worthy challenge to develop to the vision that Cuarón wanted to show taking years to develop into a project to greenlight because of the challenge to make a film that would have 80% of its 90 minute run-time be CG (with the exception of the face of the actor) - we are talking about doing lengthy zero-g environment scenes with carefully planned out shots and years of research. He was inspired by the films he watched as a child that interacted with his love of space such as A Trip to the Moon (1902), Marooned (1969), and Woman in the Moon (1929), although he did not plan originally to do a film in space, having started with a theme of adversity that he talked with his son about survival scenarios before getting to an idea of an astronaut spinning into space away from human contact as seeming like the perfect metaphor. The real challenge is probably having to act in a film with set positions and timing that came after all the animation required beforehand. Bullock and Clooney are the two actors who had to deal with this type of positioning because they are the only physical faces we seen on screen at all, with sprinkling of voices of others from time to time. The intrigue of seeing the film rides high on that opening and its lengthy opening shot that is quite exquisite. I found it to be quite a thrill ride, one that finds its voice of adversity and rebirth with well-done execution in pacing and tone that makes us feel like we are part of the experience of space and all that come from it (I can only imagine how it must have felt in 3D, which is likely a statement that could be applied to quite a few features in this decade - for better or worse). There is a profound enjoyment I have for something like this, one that moves and shakes from moment to moment that goes right in hand with survival films from the past with bated breath over what might happen next. Bullock does just fine with that in mind, one who reacts with useful timing for a role needing a vocal winner that can seem the part without just being a green screen puppet - basically, she is the one needed for space drama. Clooney is the other to bounce off of for certain moments, which he does alright by. There are a few quibbles that could be had with some of what occurs in the story, such as the use of the Space Shuttle for a mission past its actual shutdown in 2011 - but we are talking a movie here that involves a thrill ride for enjoyment, and pretending that the shuttle is still being used to help with space travel is perfectly fine by me, because if you can at least come close to seeming as majestic about space as Apollo 13 (1995) did while including tension-pounding moments for entertainment, you can't go wrong with this kind of sci-fi drama. It isn't a perfect film by any means, but it is a fascinating film for its adventure of adversity that can be a thrill ride for those who seek where it ultimately goes in exploration beyond just the stars.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Birdemic 2: The Resurrection.

Review #1101: Birdemic 2: The Resurrection.

Cast: 
Alan Bagh (Rod), Whitney Moore (Nathalie), Patsy van Ettinger (Nathalie's mom), Thomas Favaloro (Bill), Chelsea Turnbo (Gloria), Brittany N. Pierce (Jessica), Thuan Luu (Will), and Aaron Pressburg (Dustin) Directed by James Nguyen (#184 - Birdemic: Shock and Terror)

Review: 
Note: Older fans of Movie Night will remember how I covered the first Birdemic back on June 26, 2012 as part of my "Tour de Worse Trilogy" (which ironically had no French films in that series. I also was 15 when I came up with that name), and the film's quality was...less than satisfactory, one might say. It has an important distinction as the first ever movie that I gave a 0/10 star rating, with six other films "achieving the honor" in the six years (and nearly 1,000 reviews) that have passed since Birdemic - The Garbage Pail Kids Movie (#442), The Magic Voyage (#467), Battlefield Earth (#704), The Beast of Yucca Flats (#744), Monster A-Go-Go (#756), and Red Zone Cuba (#876). Hopefully you will enjoy this review.

The original film had a "variety" of terrible things about it, such as its wooden acting, generic dialogue, boring pace and "memorable" bird effects. There were things that I had forgotten to talk about in Birdemic: Shock and Terror, such as the fact that the film had taken four years to make (with shooting at various locations without permits), and that the actors in the film would serve as crew members for things such as holding microphones or doing the makeup, with fake names used to hide that fact in the credits. Looking at the official website for the film is a strange thing in of itself, since it makes the site for The Room (2003) look downright normal by comparison. The film has gained some sort of cult status as a "so bad, it's good" sort of movie, although I can't really say that applies since I feel that Birdemic is simply terrible, where even Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966) is more interesting to think about as a bad flick (particularly in recent years with the discovery of the original 16mm workprint and ensuing restoration), but I digress.

The very fact that there exists a sequel is laughable, complete with the slogan on its poster being that "Hollywood is about to take a beating"...suffice to say that the only thing to take a beating after this film is the viewer. I will say that there is one true line in the whole film (emphasis mine): "I don't know much about the movie business, but I know how to read and I like your story." If you come into this movie looking to make fun of it, I suppose you will get a real kick out of going through the inane nature that encompasses its 79 minute run-time. Actually, you may get more than what you come looking for, as this is a treasure trove of awful film-making decisions. Much of the same criticisms from the first film can still apply to this one, complete with some new ones, such as having dialogue that manages to be repetitive, a bizarrely executed climax, padding to a nth degree, and other various things that makes this a slog to watch. Bagh and Moore return from the previous installment, although the real focus (in a sense) of the film is on Favaloro and Turnbo's characters, and it's interesting to see how one can't really find much difference in acting quality in any of these actors. This time around, it would seem that Nguyen wanted to make his sequel bigger in terms of its effects, and nothing summarizes this better than the scene with the "giant jumbo jellyfish", or perhaps the sequences with blood rain shooting out into the screen was intended to be the pinnacle. Honorable mention goes to the caveman and zombie sequences, which come out of nowhere in a movie with no real sort of logic. Seriously, there are sequences involving cavemen being attacked by the birds, and they actually are revived by the "blood rain", although their story isn't resolved in any sort of satisfactory way much like the rest of the plot "threads" in the film.

Nothing speaks a good movie like having a five minute opening sequence of walking, complete with blurred out faces, which is certainly a first in watching a movie. To list all of the flaws in what makes this slop of a movie would be a bad idea, since the review would end with scribbles of words that I wrote when trying to do "notes" when watching it - I did one page and that was it. The most amusing thing is the numerous references to other movies, from Vertigo (1958) to even Nguyen's own film named Replica (2005), which just goes to show that there really is no sense of irony in what goes on in watching terrible movies like this, where the movie even has a scene with A Day at the U.N. on a film marquee, which interestingly was a film that would've starred the Marx Brothers and directed by Billy Wilder - if it had been made. In a technical sense, this film made me curious to learn something - albeit something that didn't even exist. You could likely make a better film by simply drawing the events that occur on screen, or simply using shadow puppets to cover as special effects.

Can I give the film any sort of credit for its rating? As I reflected on what I saw and what it means to give a film the rating it deserves, I realized that there is only one true rating for this movie in my view. Congratulations, Birdemic 2: The Resurrection, you've earned something from me that not many films get. The film may be a waste of time, but truly this is a film that is worth every criticism it gets.

Overall, I give it 0 out of 10 stars.

A Madea Christmas.

Review #872: A Madea Christmas.

Cast:
Tyler Perry (Mabel "Madea" Simmons), Larry the Cable Guy (Buddy Williams), Kathy Najimy (Kim Williams), Chad Michael Murray (Tanner McCoy), Anna Maria Horsford (Eileen Murphy), Tika Sumpter (Lacey Murphy), Eric Lively (Conner Williams), JR Lemon (Oliver), Alicia Witt (Amber), Lisa Whelchel (Nancy Porter), and Noah Urrea (Bailey McCoy) Directed by Tyler Perry.

Review:
Has Movie Night gone under the hill? Is it reaching for anything now? Am I reviewing...a Christmas film in November? Actually, this is the first film I've done starring Tyler Perry, creator of things that likely clogged up TBS years back, because I can't remember anything about his shows. There really doesn't seem to be a consistent plot to this film...is it a movie about this family? Is it about doing a Christmas jubilee (because I guess it's the town's anniversary? Because that only applies to 25 or 50 year celebrations), or is about farming? A dam? For some reason, the farmer sell their crops on this jubilee...wha, you've never heard of selling crops in winter? Also, did you know that mayors can just fire teachers but can't read a contract to see its stipulations? Somehow, the movie keeps going in spite of itself. There must be a problem when Larry the Cable Guy is actually more endearing than Tyler Perry...the bar is set so low by so many lame and tired jokes that exist in some sort of vacuum. The movie doesn't even have much to do with Madea, which is a blessing covered in muck. There is some sort of anti-bullying plot...which ends with Lively's character punching Murray in the face...after the latter gets saved from a car wreck (don't worry, one of them apologizes...the latter one. Heck, they give the family a pie). Did I mention that one of the characters lied to their daughter about their dad being killed (instead, he jilted her for another woman)...and it doesn't really seem to be addressed again after that. It's like there are no consequences, where characters can just steal stuff from a store after being fired, tie up a kid to a wood board with Christmas lights, and flat out lie about a company giving a town money in front of the company's representatives. There isn't really a villain, which is somewhat surprising. I guess they decided that there needed to be more focus on padding itself out with repetitive dialogue. It fails as a comedy and it fails as a drama, having both no real sense of joy and also no sense of dramatic impact, respectively.

At the end of the day, this is already bottom of the barrel stuff that is also mixed in with bottom of the barrel Christmas stuff. I'm not a fan, but I'm sure some of the people who read this are fans, so I guess if you like Madea already, go right on ahead. Honestly, I don't understand this phenomenon (much like other trends in media), but that's how it goes.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Thor: The Dark World.

Review #827: Thor: The Dark World.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Christopher Eccleston (Malekith), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Zachary Levi (Fandral), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Rene Russo (Frigga), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Algrim / Kurse), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), and Alice Krige (Eir) Directed by Alan Taylor.

Review
In retrospect, Thor (#041) was an exciting (if not somewhat flawed) movie. It may have taken a bit of time to get rolling, but it had a fine enough climax and established Thor as a quality hero, with Hemsworth doing a fine job in that film. In the sequel, he is also excellent, even if the film around is not exactly as thrilling as before. Hemsworth is believeable as ever, and his chemistry with others in the cast being good highlights. Portman is alright, though it seems she really isn't given that much to do. Her scenes with Hemsworth are fine. Hiddleston is memorable as ever, with enough trickery and charm, highlighted by his scenes with Hemsworth. Eccleston (admist a bunch of makeup) isn't that great a villain (a problem one could say about other villains in the Marvel films), but he is at least somewhat threatening.

While the effects are pretty good (aside from times when everything seems to be photographed in blue-greyish), the plot doesn't really seem to gel itself well, particularly with the Aether, though the Loki-Thor parts do help the movie get back its footing. The action is alright, with the climax being fairly decent enough. The rest of the cast is fine enough. It may not be up to the caliber of the other Marvel films, but it is entertaining and I'm sure that others likely will like this film a good deal more than I did. Take it for what it's worth, a comic book film with some instances of flair that work in most of the right places.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

In a World...

Review #802: In a World...

Cast
Lake Bell (Carol Solomon), Fred Melamed (Sam Sotto), Michaela Watkins (Dani Solomon), Ken Marino (Gustav Warner), Demetri Martin (Louis), Rob Corddry (Moe), Alexandra Holden (Jamie), Nick Offerman (Heners), Geena Davis (Katherine Huling), and Tig Notaro (Cher) Directed by Lake Bell.

Review
Trailers (whether you love 'em or hate 'em), are certainly an interesting form of promotion for movies, and the voice (or voices) for those trailers certainly try to help sell the movie. The movie starts by showing clips of Don LaFontaine, who (quite possibly) is the most well-known voice actor for trailers, with his popularization of the phrase "In a World..." being the namesake of this movie. Bell also wrote and directed this film, and I'll give her credit for making a movie that at its heart is inherently easy to get behind. It's a movie that is likable enough and it zings with enough barbs to make for a relatively fine film. Bell certainly is a fine lead, having enough charm along with fine comic timing that makes for an interesting character to watch, with her and Martin also having a good chemistry with each other. Melamed certainly does a fine job as well, and while I wouldn't call him an antagonist, he certainly makes for an interesting character to watch with regards to his scenes with him and his (full grown) kids. The characters in the movie are pretty well-defined, all having some sort of quirk or just something that makes you want to watch them. The movie tries to mesh the comedy and drama and while it doesn't always seem to work perfectly, it is at least a movie worth seeing once. Is it for everyone? Probably not, but I felt that it worked on enough levels to work for me.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Review #693: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues.

Cast
Will Ferrell (Ron Burgundy), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), Paul Rudd (Brian Fantana), David Koechner (Champ Kind), Christina Applegate (Veronica Corningstone), Dylan Baker (Freddie Shapp), Meagan Good (Linda Jackson), James Marsden (Jack Lime), Kristen Wiig (Chani Lastnamé), and Judah Nelson (Walter Burgundy) Directed by Adam McKay (#526 - Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy)

Review
Admittedly, nine years is a weird gap between films, especially for a comedy. But hey, nobody's perfect. But was is it worth it? I guess so. It's not a disappointment but in terms of fun, the first wins out. It is a likable movie, and it does flow well with itself, which are all nice little strengths, though again it nearly suffers from comparisons to the first. The movie doesn't really have much of a flaw to it, though the cameos at the end of the movie, while somewhat entertaining, almost seem too indulgent. The movie seems to be a little more injected with drama and while it is admirable to have, it's not really helping the movie all that much. It is fun to see the cast once again, and I guess it wouldn't be awful if a third movie was made. So all in all, take the movie for what it is and consider the fact this isn't a bad way to spend your time, so that's that.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Cast
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Benedict Cumberbatch (Khan), Simon Pegg (Scotty), Karl Urban (McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Uhura), Peter Weller (Alexander Marcus), Alice Eve (Dr. Carol Marcus), John Cho (Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Chekov), and Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike) Directed by J.J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek and #149 - Super 8)

Review
Eh, it's been a while (10 months, 22 days to be exact) since I've done a Star Trek film (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture), so why not do the most recent film. The first film (of the reboot series) wasn't bad, though it's not like it was a great piece of work, and you find that out during this film. It's not that this film is bad, it just feels like one step forward but one-and-a-half steps back. The effects are at least good, though those lens flares really get in the way on occasion, which almost gets in the way of actors trying to convey their scenes. The acting is fine, though I really didn't buy that Eve's character being Weller's daughter, maybe it's the lack of time they have together, but at least Weller is stellar despite limited time. Cumberbatch is pretty good, but it's the character I have an issue with. By making him play Khan, the film limits his motives in a sense. The original Khan had a motive of revenge and was great at portraying it. This Khan has more a touch of generic than revenge. Even when Cumberbatch cries it feels forced. It's not a bad performance, it's just flawed writing. The story is at least somewhat decent...until it rehashes Wrath of Khan's last half hour. Well, almost. Just because you have the villain from Wrath of Khan doesn't mean you have to emulate it, it's unnecessary and just makes the movie seem unsure of itself, like it wasn't confident with itself. At least the movie has its moments, any scene with Simon Pegg is brilliant, he brightens the movie, if only briefly. Your opinion on the movie will probably rest on what you think of Abrams as a director and/or Khan. It's a toss-up, basically.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Nebraska.

Review #635: Nebraska.

Cast
Bruce Dern (Woody Grant), Will Forte (David Grant), June Squibb (Kate Grant), Bob Odenkirk (Ross Grant), Stacy Keach (Ed Pegram), Mary Louise Wilson (Aunt Martha), Missy Doty (Noel), and Angela McEwan (Pegy Nagy) Directed by Alexander Payne.

Review
This is a movie that manages to be both heartfelt and sometimes hilarious. This movie belongs to Bruce Dern, he manages to make every moment count, and he's even fun to watch when he's not talking, such as the denture scene, though my favorite scene is the Mount Rushmore scene because watching Dern's character describe it as a bunch of rocks that look unfinished is simply beautiful. The black and while photography makes the movie look crisp and gives the movie a tone of its own, which matches the dreariness of the characters and the landscape to an extent, but the movie is still interesting to look at. The characters are interesting to watch, living in a small state without much to do, but they all have their unique flair to it. Forte is actually a pretty good lead, and he works extremely well with Dern, that's what makes the movie work, the relationship of the two characters. The movie isn't just a trip to Nebraska, it's a chance to see layers of Dern's character get revealed, the good and bad, making for an emotional, if not somewhat funny film. The graveyard scene actually does provoke some laughs, I guess it because of June Squibb, who is essentially the only sane person in the movie, next to Forte. The movie is somewhat soothing in a way, but it is at heart charming, and a good way to spend your time, especially to see Bruce Dern.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Sharknado.

Review #625: Sharknado.

Cast
Ian Ziering (Finley "Fin" Shepard), Tara Reid (April Wexler), Chuck Hittinger (Matt Shepard), Aubrey Peeples (Claudia Shepard), John Heard (George), Cassie Scerbo (Nova Clarke), Jaason Simmons (Baz), and a Sharkando full of sharks. Directed by Anthony C. Ferrante.

Review
Let's be honest, the movie is cheaply made, with no name actors*, effects that border on hilarity, and science that makes life look fake...And yet the movie is still awesome to watch. It's a terrible movie, but it is a fun terrible movie to watch, it's not like The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which is beyond awful and joyless, instead it's a movie that is just so laughable in every aspect, and yet the movie trudges on, not caring what anyone thinks. The fact that this was even made means that literally anything can happen now, which obviously means that in my lifetime the Chicago Cubs will win the World Series*. To say that this is a guilty pleasure is an understatement, and we all have guilty pleasures, mine is watching WWE wrestling*, yours is probably something else that's either more rational, or not. This is our generation's Plan 9 from Outer Space*, this is our movie that we'll laugh at and laugh with at the same time. This is how to spend two hours of your time on a weekend, forget friends, forget exercising, forget logic, and just watch this film*, and when you've finished, thank me the only way you can, keep watching this show. Or you could deliver some shark meat to my house.* To give this movie a rating would be impossible*, this isn't a movie that is good or bad in the traditional sense, it is only a Sharknado.* You can give this movie your own rating, or you can go see the sequel. Or do both.* I hope you enjoyed this review, I sure did.*

*If Tara Reid is an actress, does that mean I'm a goat? Asking for a friend.
**Of course, I could also live to be 100...
***I get to watch people try to act like they're in a soap opera and fight at the same time.
****Minus recycling silent footage from an abandoned movie.
*****Movie Night does not support laziness or anti-logic. I do have friends. I think.
******There is no address, only Zuul.
*******For future reference, we'll say it was a 2.5 out of 5 stars. Or whatever that is multiplied by two.
********Sharknado!
*********Or do all three.
**********I don't apologize for the *'s.

Movie Night: All Is Lost.

Review #588: All Is Lost.

Cast
Robert Redford (Our Man) Directed by J. C. Chandor.

Review
All is Lost is unique in its setup, having only one character, one setting, and barely any dialogue, leaving Redford to carry an entire movie by himself. And he succeeds. Redford doesn't make the character just by dialogue, he makes the character his own by his actions, by how we watch him struggle with what's going on around him. Redford is still impressive to watch even today, especially when watching him try to call for help, which is both riveting and emotional. The movie may seemingly have a simple premise, but in that premise is layers of emotions that venture in. This is a remarkable movie, a movie that tries hard and succeeds in its main goal of excellence and telling a story.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Frozen.

Review #579: Frozen.

Cast
Kristen Bell (Anna), Idina Menzel (Elsa), Jonathan Groff (Kristoff), Josh Gad (Olaf), Santino Fontana (Hans), Alan Tudyk (Duke of Weselton), and Ciarán Hinds (Grand Pabbie the Troll King) Directed by Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee.

Review
Frozen is a movie that after watching it, feels like a classic. The songs are the first shining moments as they flow so well with each other and make a powerful feeling of fun. The characters are likable, they are fun to watch interact with one each other, especially Olaf, who is fun and certainly enduring, though Elsa is a brilliantly written character that is given her moment to shine. But most of all, the story is really well crafted, it's a really creative tale. The animation is wonderful, especially all the shots of ice because it looks so beautiful. Is the movie really great? Only time will tell, as movies come and go, but classics never fade from our memories, which is also what I say when trying to get "Let It Go" out of my head.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Way Way Back.

Review #575: The Way Way Back.

Cast
Liam James (Duncan), Steve Carell (Trent Ramsey), Toni Collette (Pam), Sam Rockwell (Owen), Maya Rudolph (Caitlyn), AnnaSophia Robb (Susanna), Allison Janney (Betty), Rob Corddry (Kip), and Amanda Peet (Joan) Directed by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash.

Review
The Way Way Back may feel cobbled together out of tropes (The loner, the parents who are useless, the northeastern setting (I suppose), the one villainous character, the romance subplot, the quirky qualities of one or more characters), but at least this is a well made cobble of tropes. The movie has its quirks, it has moments of zing that try to make for a fun movie, which it does for the first half. The second half isn't exactly as good, but I guess it could be worse. Sam Rockwell is just a joy to watch, he has a level of quirk to him and he works well with James. James himself is a decent child actor, he works well with Robb, the chemistry awkward, but it does feel just right. I wasn't aware how effective Steve Carell could be in portraying an irredeemable character (no, Gru from Despicable Me doesn't count), which essentially tells me I should watch more of Carell's work. The second half just isn't as great, maybe it just feels so downbeat mixed with some sweetness just for kicks. The movie just has a bittersweet ending that either breaks the movie due to it being a buzz kill on the fun or it just wraps the movie up nicely and makes the movie work. I'm more on the former, but this is at least is an decent comedy that works for someone looking to spend an afternoon on a hot summer day...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: World War Z.

Review #542: World War Z.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Gerry Lane), Mireille Enos (Karin Lane), Daniella Kertesz (Segen), James Badge Dale (Captain Speke), Ludi Boeken (Jurgen Warmbrunn), Matthew Fox (Parajumper), Fana Mokoena (Thierry Umutoni), David Morse (Ex-CIA Agent), Elyes Gabel (Andrew Fassbach), and Peter Capaldi (W.H.O. Doctor) Directed by Marc Forster (#384 - Quantum of Solace)

Review

Talking about the book the movie was "adapted" from is pointless, only because it apparently took only the name of the book, with no relation to the book's plot, thus the way the movie adapted the book means nothing in the rating of this film. World War Z has an interesting premise, a war between humans and zombies...at least I thought it was that before watching it. In reality, it's a thriller that sometimes has action, but maybe not enough action. Pitt is at least entertaining, and the cast isn't bad (*insert your Peter Capaldi is the 12th Doctor joke here*), the movie isn't undercut by the cast, it's just not always interesting. It's an okay film, and the zombie attack on the plane is at least interesting to watch, but the zombies to me, while at least quick (slow zombies could be killed really easily), seem to growl really silly, which sometimes undercuts the terror. I'm still wondering why there were no tanks around, but I probably missed that reason for a vehicle that could crush the zombies. The "twist" ending is sort of clever, though admittedly, it could be regarded a plot hole as well. SPOILER ALERT: Sick people are apparently immune to zombies. Why? Zombies don't even have brains, why are they so selective? Regardless, the movie isn't bad, it's just underwhelming, and the ending feels sort of rushed, but I digress. It's an okay movie, but there are probably better zombie movies around. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Pacific Rim.

Review #425: Pacific Rim.

Cast
Charlie Hunnam (Raleigh Becket), Idris Elba (Stacker Pentecost), Rinko Kikuchi (Mako Mori), Charlie Day (Dr. Newton Geizler), Burn Gorman (Dr. Hermann Gottlieb), Ron Perlman (Hannibal Chau), Heather Doerksen (Sasha Kaidanovsky), Ellen McLain (Jaeger AI), Robert Kazinsky (Chuck Hansen), Robert Maillet (Aleksis Kaidanovsky), Max Martini (Herc Hansen), and Diego Klattenhoff (Yancy Becket) Directed by Guillermo del Toro.

Review
Pacific Rim is the third in my walks to my movie theater, and when the film started, the audience had grown from a handful to a near room full. After I left, I kept that in mind while trying to form my opinions into one singular review that didn't say the same thing over and over again. And what did I think of this film? It was pretty awesome. Was it a great film? No, but for 2 hours, it was entertaining, and yet it didn't feel like it had been too sacrificing in the characterization, in fact I liked the characters, they were written alright, and the actors were good, such as Hunnam, Elba, Kikuchi, and even the supporting cast. They were likable, they were useful and they all had a purpose in this film. But of course, the main thing about this film is the Jaegers and Kaiju, who are grand in scale, but grander when battling each other. The battle scenes look beautiful, and they bring an epic scale, truly grand in scale. This film is about 80% battling, 15% on characters and about 5% manic energy. It even manages to bring a chuckle or two out of me, and this did a far better job of spectacle than the Transformers films ever did. But nevertheless, this is a pretty good film. It may take spectacle over characterization, but really did anyone not expect that? My main reason for watching this was because of the fact I could see giant robots fighting monsters and not have it all be a great dream. Instead, it is brought to life by Guillermo del Toro, who does a wonderful job. Truly, this one deserves the hype, and it deserves a watch, for the grand spectacle and the fun that it delivers. Truly, I did not waste my money watching this.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Iron Man 3.

Review #396: Iron Man 3.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes/Iron Patriot), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Ben Kingsley (Trevor Slattery), Stephanie Szostak (Ellen Brandt), James Badge Dale (Eric Savin), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ty Simpkins (Harley), Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.), William Sadler (President Ellis) and Miguel Ferrer (Rodriguez) Directed by Shane Black.

Review
In Review #372, I reviewed 42, but this was never the original purpose. I went to the movie theater (big shock, I actually got out of the house), and because Iron Man 3 was sold out, so I picked 42 on the spot. 42 was a fine film, but it always bugged me that I missed Iron Man 3 on that day. 37 days later, I went to the movie theater to go see Iron Man 3, to complete the cycle of the Iron Man films I've reviewed (#135 - Iron Man, #334 - Iron Man 2) and to see if Shane Black could do a good job directing as he does writing (He screenwrote #355 - Lethal Weapon, #356 - Lethal Weapon 2, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout) for a film like this. So was it worth the wait? Yeah, pretty much. Robert Downey, Jr does a great job once again, evolving the character more, but still keeping just like we like Stark. Paltrow works well with Downey, given the amount of screen time, which is alright. Cheadle does well, consistant as always. Guy Pearce (Who I never had heard of until this film) does a fine job, not too bad a villain. As these films evolve, the villains get harder to beat, a bit more detailed after a while, which works well. I liked Ty Simpkins, not a bad child actor overall. Kingsley is allright, even if I think he's a bit underused for the film. The action works well, and the level of spectacle is at an all time high. The story flows allright, not doing too bad. This film is slightly better than Iron Man 2, not better than the first film, but still a good way to continue this film series. I do wonder if there will be a fourth one though. But at least now my..movie journey is complete. Countdown to 400 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.