The Cabin in the Woods.

Review #2302: The Cabin in the Woods.

Cast: 

Kristen Connolly (Dana Polk), Chris Hemsworth (Curt Vaughan), Anna Hutchison (Jules Louden), Fran Kranz (Marty Mikalski), Jesse Williams (Holden McCrea), Richard Jenkins (Gary Sitterson), Bradley Whitford (Steve Hadley), Brian White (Daniel Truman), Amy Acker (Wendy Lin), Sigourney Weaver (The Director), and Tim de Zarn (Mordecai) Directed by Drew Goddard.

Review:

" I’m going to leave that to others to decide. If subversion comes along, so be it. I just love that we’re throwing the ultimate horror party. And really, we’re telling stories about why we tell stories, with what the characters go through. That’s the nature of creation."

Well, it was bound to happen someday. Drew Goddard started off as a production assistant before eventually becoming a staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (2002-03), which you might remember was created by Joss Whedon. Goddard wrote his first film screenplay with Cloverfield (2008). The movie came out from a desire of Goddard to work with Whedon on something, which went from brainstorming an outline to eventually getting down to writing a first draft in the span of three days. According to Whedon, he envisioned the film as one that would be a "serious critique of what we love and don't about horror movies", one that would have what they liked in being scared along with making light of what they didn't care for recently while Goddard once called it as "more a critique of society" in posing the question about why one feels the need to marginalize youth on screen. The movie was originally slated for release by MGM...in 2009. Financial difficulties with the studio eventually led to it being released by Lionsgate years later (it was first screened in 2011 before release in March of 2012). Based on a promo campaign that pushed for as little spoiling as possible, the film was a fair hit with audiences. Goddard has continued to write in television and film (while directing once more with Bad Times at the El Royale [2018]).

Sure, maybe there is a worthwhile metaphor worth holding up for this film. Sure, maybe this is your ideal horror movie for its era that holds up well in an era of references and other things. But man, I really, really did not care that much for this movie as much as other people seem to vaunt it as a cult classic, particularly with its ending. In trying to make a "loving hate letter" to the horror genre, all I found that doesn't even have a payoff on the levels of Scream (1996). In trying to present that the monster is basically interchangeable, all I got out of that was a movie that is exhausting more than clever. The acting tries to have people play both "character" and the "archetype" to decidedly mixed results, because if you're going to play homage and parody with the slasher, you better have something charming brewing beyond Kranz being the standout. Get it? Our five guys to follow up (spoiler: not actually five) are not actually the cliches you think they are but are still pretty one-note anyway? Get it? Call me crazy, but you know what was more fun? Watching the strange charm of seeing Jenkins and Whitford together basically watching the build-up for people dying because, and I say this sincerely, they actually are funny. They may reflect the viewer when it comes to viewing our leads and waiting for things to play out (or in an amusing moment, watching them scoff at the failure of a certain horror scenario play out) but honestly, I would probably rather watch them play out for the whole film. Of course, perhaps I am not the kind of person to really understand "meta" or whatever but consider that some have seen plenty of horror films that actually let you think about its cliches and don't come off as exhausting. The Deadly Spawn (1983) wasn't much more than its effects sequences, but I was more interested in where it was going to end up in its house-bound locale than here with its attempts at playing on the joke (it also didn't have an ending that made me roll my eyes). Hell, Shaun of the Dead (2004) just shut up and rode its romcomzombie foundation for a consistent ride that commented on the old stuff but actually was worth its stuff in the elements. But, well, I can at least say it isn't on the level of The Blair Witch Project (1999) in being overrated? You want horror movies with "meaning"? Then give me something worth its salt to actually hold up beyond essentially chuckling at itself. Time will surely give credit to this film for its playing with the tropes of horror, but I'm not going to lose any sleep in calling it average. It has a few interesting moments in curiosity in actual violence, specifically a moment of release to build-up the actual reveal, and it sometimes is funny when it comes to looking at them beyond cliches. But as a whole, it manages to overwhelm and underwhelm itself in misplaced ideas about horror and youth for overall execution that makes it just average in the long run. Go into the film with as little expectations or knowledge as possible and see for yourself, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: two better horror movies with elements of humor, and the first is Braindead.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga.

Review #2216: Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga. 

Cast: 

Anya Taylor-Joy (Furiosa; Alyla Browne as young Furiosa), Chris Hemsworth (Dementus), Tom Burke (Praetorian Jack), Lachy Hulme (Immortan Joe), Nathan Jones (Rictus Erectus), Josh Helman (Scrotus), John Howard (The People Eater), Angus Sampson (The Organic Mechanic), and Charlee Fraser (Mary Jo Bassa) Directed by George Miller (#380 - Mad Max, #392 - Happy Feet, #493 - The Witches of Eastwick, #707 - Mad Max 2, #781 - Mad Max: Fury Road, #2026 - Twilight Zone: The Movie, #2215 - Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome)

Review: 

It seemed only yesterday that one was heralding the return of George Miller to directing a new Mad Max film, because the development of Fury Road (which in addition to having Tom Hardy as the title character had Charlize Theron co-starring as Furiosa, who if you remember had one grey arm and paint around the eyes) was one that took multiple decades to go from an idea of a continuous chase to something that resulted in plenty of stuff (as developed by Miller, Brendan McCarthy, and Nico Lathouris for the screenplay) that could've resulted in a whole other film (in fact, there was an idea to shoot back-to-back a Furiosa film with Fury Road, but, this did not pass). Long story short, years would pass before Miller got to make what he envisioned in a film that is both prequel to Fury Road and spinoff; there was an idea to use de-aging tech on Theron but instead Miller went with just casting a younger actress for this film (of course, in the segments of the film with a really young Furiosa, technology was used on the eyes to more resemble Taylor-Joy). Several members of the crew from the last film returned here (such as for production design, music, and, well Miller writing with Lathoruis for the screenplay). Evidently, it took over two months to shoot the big action sequence of the film (the longest of the films at 148 minutes). which is only the tip of the iceberg in rip-roaring interest before its climax. Plans are never set in stone, but Miller apparently has one idea in mind for another Mad Max film involving a Wasteland, but one never knows.

It is pretty amazing for a series like Mad Max to go five-for-five in quality entertainment. Miller wanted to make a movie that goes all in for action that lends its lead actor plenty to show in their eyes rather than copious amounts of dialogue (Miller has stated his longstanding passion for silent films) that also manages to look like something worth seeing in a theater for all of its spectacle. It manages to uphold what made Fury Road so special all those years ago that acts on instinct in a manner that makes for quite the accomplishment once again for primary Australian productions and Miller. You could highlight the opening chase sequence or the rig sequence for its execution of sound and not be wrong with either choice. The landscape always manages to make an impression on oneself when viewing it among the imagery in a way that makes the storytelling all the more effective in what gets conveyed within the selective dialogue used. Browne and Taylor-Joy each have their moments in the sun to express so much when it comes to having to make a place for themselves in a world that values resources above all (as evidenced by the fact that two of the main locations of the film are "Gastown" and "Bullet Farm"), particularly for someone like her that has plenty of suppression amid all of the mayhem. It isn't about the dialogue that matters so much to her journey as it is the way she maneuvers the surroundings that arise from such perils. The dynamic that arises from her and Burke in trying to carve a living while in a rig that doesn't seem to allow any thought of it is a curious one because of that understated charm that arises as if one was viewing a Western (again, it seems hard to have any sort of bond with people in a place full of nuts named "Immortan"). Hulme works well in fitting into the role as originally played by Hugh Keays-Byrne in terms of stature (as opposed to just calling him a creep for all of those wives, shall we say). However, it is Hemsworth who seems to stand out the best in the film because of how much he commands of the screen in his villainy. Far from just an inflated nose and other little things to spot in his features (and of course, the chariot), he cultivates a unnerving presence that is tremendously captivating within his brutality and chaotic nature (consider the group seen with him at the start as compared with how he stands at the end). He clearly relishes being in this role and the climactic scene with him and Taylor-Joy is especially helpful in understanding the nature of revenge versus fulfillment within one's soul. In general, this is the kind of film that gives a spark to make plans to watch alongside Fury Road and enjoy with complete fulfillment for all of the technical accomplishment that arises from each production in post-apocalyptic spectacle and mythmaking on the most interesting levels. I'm not sure where it ranks when compared to the other quality predecessors, but it is quite an odyssey to experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Love and Thunder.

Review #1862: Thor: Love and Thunder.

Cast: 

Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Christian Bale (Gorr the God Butcher), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), Taika Waititi (Korg), with Russell Crowe (Zeus), and Natalie Portman (Jane Foster / Mighty Thor) Directed by Taika Waititi (#1009 - Thor: Ragnarok)

Review: 

Do you remember Thor: Ragnarok (2017)? Well, it has almost been five years since that movie came out, so one could be forgiven for wondering just how there are now four Thor movies in the span of eleven years that all seem to be a bit weirdly different with interpreting its title character, as originally created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby in 1962. The previous movie was some sort of weird space opera pastiche while this one is a pastiche of adventure that was written by Waititi and Jennifer Kaytin Robinson. Let be me honest: each Thor movie has the unique experience of being watchable for once without really making me yearn to really see it twice. I think the original 2011 film was probably the most interesting experience I had with the main Thor films (the 2013 sequel is a blank), even if Ragnarok might have been the better of the films in actual execution (emphasis on execution, since it is likely the most average 8/10 movie seen in a movie theater). Of course, the renditions seen in the Avenger films are there too, but do you really count those? The fourth film has been described the director as apparently doubling down on the crazy that had been seen before in a quest for inner peace for the character, which Hemsworth has now played eight times. There are a handful of connections to other Marvel properties and potential ties for future things (which features the Guardians of the Galaxy), but I generally prefer to care about the actual title character rather than things on the side, because if I want to watch the Guardians, I would simply just watch Guardians of the Galaxy; in other words: I am trying to get pickier and pickier with what I see in a theater to use my time (it is summer, which means a possible pennant race sandwiched between finding ten movies that merit curiosity).

You know, if it was a movie about just finding inner peace with a quality villain for a tale that wants to imitate 1980s adventure in the vein of a Conan movie, one could be fine with that. Of course, in the search for finding some sort of feeling to fill oneself rather than nothingness, all that is found is a mediocre movie that you wish would get a grip and stick with one thing at a time for its 119-minute runtime. Perhaps this is unintentional irony, where the pursuit of inner peace is constantly interrupted by annoying quirks that refuse to simply get out of the way...which can be said about the directing style or the plot. Bale is the best part of the movie, and of course he only is present for about a half-hour, because the muddling mud of the movie means needing to shoehorn all of these other characters there to make it work without overloading itself for two hours (imagine the one playing the most listless character being the director). It may prove for some wild interest for those who are into what Waititi is selling, which is making a movie that presents spectacle without trying to hesitate in "ha-ha" moments of self-awareness and pathos...or it might prove nothing of interest to those who weren't already tuned to what had been done before with the previous Thor rendition. I am firmly in the middle in believing that the movie did prove decent entertainment while also being an inferior sequel that is average. Hemsworth does do well with what is needed in a mid-life crisis Thor in the best manner possible, which is to say that he still has the quality timing required for this role that he has cultivated beyond just being a beefy actor, serving his best Kurt Russell impersonation to suitable results. For someone who has seen plenty of destruction and changes (while only losing and later gaining an eye in all that time), his pursuit for some sort of meaning beyond just whupping people is at least something worthwhile. Portman was in the first two features to moderate effect, in that she was the one notable aspect of the non-superhero castmates before bowing out for a time from these kinds of films. Now taking elements from Jason Aaron's run of Thor comics for the character, one is reminded that she is a pretty good partner to rumble with Hemsworth, crisp in timing that uses her time in the mantle of Thor for a few moments in spectacle sandwiched with romcom that works for enough of it to make the actual endpoint...okay at best. One likes to see them together rather than whatever spectacle-ball could be thrown up next, especially when compared to something as clearly interesting as "screaming goats" or "knowing how rock creatures procreate" or "communicating with one's hammer". Silly is one thing, smirking at it is another.

Bale is the best villain of these movies because he brings a quality lacking in a number of these spectacles: humility and being more than just a name actor playing a special effect. It begs for more of him in the film, since he is present for basically ten minutes of the first hour (starting with a lengthy sequence to start the film) before it gets more interesting, as he brings a striking edge to a killer role with some sort of useful POV, one that looks for an end to his accursed situation. The fact that the climax isn't solely built on "effect-show" makes the conclusion at least makes the experience mostly worth it, as Bale has elevated a decently scripted role requiring effects work into something compelling (my favorite is him spooking some children who are trying to cheer up by listening to a story of Thor in conquest). Oh right, there is meant to be a supporting cast. This is where Thompson and Waititi come in, serving as mannequins that occasionally try to lend a hand to Hemsworth and Portman in relief. To be nice: at least they seem to be enjoying themselves? Interesting how the only useful one proves to be Crowe, putting on a Greek accent that fits the role in tremendous ego that of course isn't meant to be there for quite long. Sure, you could tease more of him later on, but it only underlies the point that some bits work better in actually lending charm or the feeling of anything than others. As a whole, it serves the spectacle crowd just fine while lacking that special spark in the element of depth or restraint to be anything other than an expensive mediocre movie, one that hopefully will not show signs of weariness when the inevitable follow-up lurks into theaters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Endgame.

Review #1213: Avengers: Endgame.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Captain Marvel), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Josh Brolin (Thanos), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Evangeline Lilly (Hope van Dyne / The Wasp), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Rene Russo (Frigga), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax), Letitia Wright (Shuri), John Slattery (Howard Stark), Tilda Swinton (The Ancient One), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Marisa Tomei (Aunt May), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Michael Douglas (Hank Pym), Michelle Pfeiffer (Janet Van Dyne), William Hurt (Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Hiroyuki Sanada (Akihiko), Tom Vaughan-Lawlor (Ebony Maw), Vin Diesel (Groot), Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), and Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier, #796 - Captain America: Civil War, and #1079 - Avengers: Infinity War)

Review: 
It is a strange thing to reach the end of a film saga like this one, with 22 films in eleven years that showcased numerous heroes onto the big screen while making a cinematic universe unrivaled at this moment by any other sort of studio. There will be more comic book films in the future from Marvel Studios that one would hope will continue to make interesting hero stories that work well as entertainment. As I recall from Infinity War last year, I thought that it was a pretty good experience that went for spectacle and succeeded in packing in each moment it wants to for a 149 minute run-time. Endgame decides to build on the model with a 181 minute run-time, which makes it longer than any comic book film - which is likely for the best, since at least it does try to be thorough with where it wants to go. This is a film that has a big task on its hands - it has to follow the previous Avengers film and its big punch at the end from its main threat: half of the universe is eliminated on a snap of the fingers of its big space device, the Infinity Gauntlet. It was pretty shocking to see that actually occur in that film, but I admit that it had to happen, mostly because there had to be a way to put big stakes for the inevitable sequel - so why not just have some of your heroes actually vanish? Of course, we live in an age where rumors and sequel reports are rampant, so seeing a hero die does tend to feel a bit hollow if you figure that they'll just return for their own batch of sequels (although explaining that to a kid would probably be a bit cynical at first). In any case, this is a film that has fun with some of its greatest hits by going back to the past, which works itself out just fine without becoming too stupid with its use of time travel as a plot device - for the most part. For me, I thought that the film was pretty good. It is probably as good as the last film, and it will probably rank up as a top ten favorite of this "Infinity Saga", which is for the best. It lives up to the expectations set from before and fulfills its destiny as an ending that proves satisfactory in closing things out with its own set of twists and action pulls. It has a bit of emotional weight to it at least, with its opening scene being a pretty fine highlight in actually showcasing some consequences along with the only Avenger actor given nothing to do over the years in Renner, so that works out. Finales are hard to land, particularly with trying to cover its bases and hooking its audience with excitement and rewarding the ones who have watched these films for over a decade with a real ending. Suffice to say, this works out well.

Undeniably, the best part of the film for me was the interactions of the heroes together with each other, with a key emphasis on the original cast-mates from the earlier films, while pairing off certain heroes with each other like the previous Avengers film did, such as Downey and Evans, Johansson and Renner, or Hemsworth with Cooper. These work out pretty well, with Downey being the most entertaining part of the film, as one would expect from someone doing a role once again over the past eleven years while serving as the heart of these films with his journey, which works out as well as one should expect. Evans and his earnest nature shine through just as well, persistent and well-natured with his own story. It makes sense to pair these two together for their own little story, which makes for a neat team-up when it comes together. Ruffalo is pretty fun to be around with, working this character to a brilliant balance that lets him not get lost in the effects while giving him time to shine. Hemsworth is fine, representing the one most changed by the events from before, which works fine - minus the parts when he is just used as comic relief for the first half, which can feel a bit tiring given his character over the past few years, even if isn't completely permanent, and I do look forward to seeing him again in other films. Johansson does well for herself here again, resilient as expected. Renner does a good job here as well, particularly with a well-done sequence in Japan that makes for quick but fun action. Among the other parts of the main group of heroes to shine is Gillan, Rudd and Cooper, who help contribute to giving the film some weight and humor, respectively. The ones to not get much to really do is Cheadle and Larson, honestly. Brolin plays the inevitability of his villain fairly well when he is on screen (although I did chuckle a bit at his "Farmer Thanos" getup for a moment). He doesn't really have as much to go on as before, but going from a pursuit for powerful stones to trying to keep his power does make him still seem dangerous without diminishing him too much. The key moments that drive the film aren't necessarily just big action pieces (of which there are enough for any action hound) but instead moments smaller on scale, such as Downey with Slattery sharing a scene together or Hemsworth with Russo at respective key points of time. It isn't so much because the moments just help to drive the plot at each point as it the fact that it resonates with what viewers have seen from these heroes and parents that shape them that resonate far more than a simple quip. The film's plot tries to juggle these characters and its destinations with an assortment of set pieces and time travel gobbledygook (which makes sense if one really doesn't think about it severely) that builds up to a big climax battle - which I found to be fairly satisfactory. I felt it made the right choices of where to go more often than not without simply devolving itself into complete overload of fan-service. It will make people really emotionally invested in these characters probably have some sort of release of emotion (which for me are just movies) and it will work out well for occasional viewers without bashing their head in with a insulting plot. It is grandiose and consuming for those who seek it, pure and simple. It may inspire a bunch of debate over how it handles certain characters (or how things ultimately ends up), but it is clear that there was a great deal of effort to pull things together to make a winning end without having a creaky foundation.

One will leave the theater probably with a sense of relief that the film worked out as well as it did within the big amount of time it had to do so, likely reflecting on how things go from there. I will probably stick around to see how some of the next few films turn out in trying to build adapt new heroes on screen and what interesting things could happen next while probably looking back on these films on occasion. This has been the best and strangest ride of entertainment that transformed comic book movies into something more, turning heroes only just known in comic circles and elevating it into the mainstream. None of these films are perfect, but they each have had their own vision and purpose, with this one being a fine gem amongst other shining features, with this being a moment of triumph.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avengers: Infinity War.

Review #1079: Avengers: Infinity War.

Cast: 
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Sebastian Stan (James "Bucky" Barnes / Winter Soldier), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Peter Dinklage (Eitri), Benedict Wong (Wong), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Benicio del Toro (Taneleer Tivan / The Collector), Josh Brolin (Thanos), and Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier and #796 - Captain America: Civil War)

Review: 
On May 2, 2008, Iron Man (#135) was released into theaters, being the first film in what has become known as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which has served to try and tell stories of entertainment with adaptations of characters from all-throughout its numerous comic book series. Eighteen films later, here we are with Avengers: Infinity War, picking up plot points from numerous movies such as the first two Avengers installments (#312 and #706) but also Guardians of the Galaxy (#626 and #932) and Doctor Strange (#874) among others. It is obvious to see the amount of effort (and money) utilized to try and make something that achieves its goal of great spectacle. As such, the film is successful in being good entertainment. While it can be argued that it may be a bit overstuffed for its own good (in numerous categories), it will ultimately prove satisfying for people invested in what it is trying to showcase, as is the case for this series in other films, which have had their own range of success. It might not go down as the best in this series or even the best comic book film ever, but it will serve as solid joyfulness for its viewers.

This is a film with a large scale and large importance to what matters, but it is the parts involving its main villain that ultimately tie the film best. For a series that likes to show off its heroes and their abilities, their depiction of villains have generally not always been their highlight, but I think that it works here because of the conviction taken to give Brolin's character a level of importance and depth, which Brolin does a good job in making entertaining and prime for what you would expect. The film manages to take what could've been unwieldy with having such a large cast and having to balance each out and makes it work just enough to keep its plots going with enough energy and commitment. It never spends too much time on one thing without sacrificing the other parts of the plot to its detriment. If you have spent time watching these characters (or care about them), you will find a good deal to appreciate in seeing certain people interact with each other, such as Downey and Cumberbatch, or Hemsworth and Cooper, filled with its moments of fun quips. The film can't be faulted for being murky with its effects or its costume look since it manages to not blur the line between wonderful and cut-scene. The action sequences are executed as you'd expect, accompanying the film with good craft and energy. The film and its impact will differ from person to person, but I found the film to be at the very least successful with telling its story without becoming a crammed exercise in over-indulgence, but I can't say that I am a staunch defender of what it does. At 149 minutes, it may prove a bit of overkill for some while being just the right kind of length for others in the mood for what it tries to sell. Its climax is fairly satisfactory, with enough pull and punch to make something worth going home to without feeling cheated or feeling sick.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Review #706: Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Cast
Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), James Spader (Ultron), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Don Cheadle (James Rhodes / War Machine), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Aaron Taylor-Johnson (Pietro Maximoff / Quicksilver), Paul Bettany (Jarvis / Vision), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / The Falcon), Linda Cardellini (Laura Barton), and Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter) Directed by Josh Whedon (#312 - The Avengers)

Review

It's a good movie. Is it great? No, but it is an entertaining movie. While it admittedly stuffs itself a little too much with a bit of everything, that's not to say the movie isn't too imperfect. To say there is a load of heroes in this film is a bit of an understatement, though the movie doesn't utilize all of them, which is disappointing if you liked War Machine. Or the Falcon. But hey, at least we get three new heroes into the fray, though Quicksilver in this film isn't as interesting as the one played by Evan Peters in X-Men: Days of Future Past. Why the two versions are so different is beyond me. Olsen does make Scarlet Witch seem interesting, which is welcome with me. As usual, our main six Avengers are good with each other, and it is nice to see some character development for Hawkeye (in the sense that I remember his name now. Oh, and something about a family), which is fine. But of course, this review can't function without mention of James Spader as Ultron. I knew at some point I'd talk about Spader (who I find perpetually awesome in The Blacklist. Boston Legal was fun to watch when I was younger, though it's been about...four years since I've seen it), and here we are. I like his performance. Yes, he's constricted to just his voice, but I find his tone very well suited to a role such as this. His performance is really entertaining, though I wonder if he is up to the same level as Loki's villainous role in the first film. The effects are nice, and it is refreshing to see The Vision's look, though I do wonder why he made a cape (No capes!). But the movie is good. It does over stuff itself with characters and plot lines, but to be fair, it's not like that's all a bad thing. This Marvel universe is only getting bigger, and I can't wait to see what's next. It's not a step back from the first film, more of a transition to the next phase, which is fine with me. Enjoy the movie, and try to snag as much popcorn as you can. Or whatever. 

Trailers seen before the movie: Insidious 3 (ha!), Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (double ha!), Masterminds (meh), Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (interesting), and Fantastic Four (why?).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Avengers.

Review #312: The Avengers.

Cast
Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark/Iron Man), Chris Evans (Steve Rogers/Captain America), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner/Hulk), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton/Hawkeye), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), and Paul Bettany (J.A.R.V.I.S.) Directed by Josh Whedon.

Review
Another year, another end. Today is the 2nd Anniversary of Movie Night's first review, back in December 20, 2012 (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), so to end Season 2, I decided to review this film. (that and to appease some requests) So how is this film? I'll tell you this much: It's a load of fun. This is a new level of fun in comic book movies, one not seen possibly ever before. It succesfully uses the Avengers and keeps (or creates) their personalities intact. You'd think that with many heroes, there'd be at least one character who'd be overshadowed. Not here. It knows when to take a breather and when to have fun with itself, especially my favorite line: "Hulk, smash" The acting is fun, with Ruffalo standing out. Oddly this is my first film review with Banner/Hulk (And from what I've heard the less said aboiut the '03 Hulk, the better.), and he does a good job. For some reason, I feel inclined to say that my favorite hero in this film is Captain America. The action is a load of fun (Redundant word much?), defining itself and keeping intrest. It lives up to the hype and more, with a script that knows its bounds, raising the bar for any team up of superheroes, and it makes you eager for more. Much, much more, which is good. Happy 2 years of Movie Night, and thank you to anyone who happens to read this. I hope for more years to come (Unless that 2012 thing comes true (it won't, but gotta please the oddballs sometimes), in that case it's great to end on the Avengers.), and thank you.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Thor.

Review #041: Thor.

Cast
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Natalie Portman (Jane Foster), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Stellan Skarsgård (Erik Selvig), Kat Dennings (Darcy Lewis), Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson), Colm Feore (King Laufey), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Ray Stevenson (Volstagg), Tadanobu Asano (Hogun), Josh Dallas (Fandral), Jaimie Alexander (Sif), and Rene Russo (Frigga) Directed by Kenneth Branagh.

Review
Greetings fellow viewer who clicked the link from the review of Thor: Ragnarok (2017) or simply wanted to see an old review. To provide some context, I have written a small piece of memories from this film, having seen it when I was 14.

In retrospect, I will say that Thor (2011) is a decent film, but it definitely pales a bit when compared to Iron Man or the film that followed this one, Captain America: The First Avenger. That's not to say that this is a mediocre movie, but it definitely has its issues, such as some of its human characters along with taking a bit of time to really get going. Hemsworth does a capable job, however, and Hiddleston and Hopkins are also fairly good standouts in a movie that has some dazzle in what proves to be fair entertainment.

The film is a exciting film that won't put you to sleep, as the film has action that is done well. The acting is good, especially from Hemsworth. The only flaw I find is that the film takes a little time to go, especially after Thor is banished to Earth. In a way, this is the penultimate film before The Avengers (The final being Captain America - #060).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.