Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Review #2323: Sonic the Hedgehog 3.

Cast: 

Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik / Professor Gerald Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Keanu Reeves (Shadow), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Krysten Ritter (Director Rockwell), Adam Pally (Wade), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Shemar Moore (Randall), with Alyla Browne (Maria), and Tom Butler (Commander Walters) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog and #1830 - Sonic the Hedgehog 2)

Review: 

Believe it or not, there aren't that many video game movies that reach "3" that anyone is actually anticipating. Sure, the first film (as released in 2020) was a pretty decent starter in gently getting folks to be invested in a silly blue blur (as originally developed by Sonic Team in 1991) that goes fast but has to learn about friends, stuff, and, well, a villain (Carrey) being the big highlight when it comes to useful bombast. The sequel (released in 2022) expanded on the lore with two more cuddly dudley creatures for an experience that was reasonably satisfying when it wasn't too grounded in the human element (we are not going to talk about the wedding sequence). It has been a while (there apparently was a "TV series" with one of its characters, but I'll be damned if I spend any time on a streaming show), but here we are with a third movie. This one shares the same writers as before in Pat Casey, Josh Miller, and John Whittington. Evidently, a fourth film is already in development for about three years from now. 

It isn't hard to say that the best parts of the film is when it settles down with familiar characters and lets a moment of spectacle breathe. No, I don't mean a music montage or a litany of references, I mean getting to the point and having fun. It helps to have a committed cast to deliver on building worthwhile stakes and, well, making you happy to see beyond the Earth. The games were designed to play fast and loose with its environment (whether in the dimension of "2D" or otherwise) and an egg-shaped man that loves wreaking havoc in the name of science or something like that. For a movie that runs 110 minutes, it does manage to carry water in solid entertainment that delivers on its expectations in terms of execution in story beats (primarily with Carrey and Reeves). It leaves the viewer (Sonic fanatic or not) with satisfaction and curiosity to see what lurks further in the undiscovered country of further adventures. Admittedly, I was most curious about how Carrey would approach this film because, well, he was "serious about retiring" and would only consider a really good script to come back. Far more than just a money grab or a makeup trap, he manages to do well in generating amusement in the double act (Brendan Murphy played the double for scenes requiring, well, two Carreys) of eccentric geniuses that show distinct layers in terms of being shaped in the disappointment in humanity, whether that means megalomania or something worse. In other words, it isn't just Carrey playing it silly with a big suit with phoning in, he is clearly having enough fun in bombast to sell it all the way down. You might be familiar with the character of Shadow (yet another hedgehog), as first featured in the game Sonic Adventure 2 in 2001 (as created by Takashi Iizuka and Shiro Maekawa with design by Kazuyuki Hoshino for what was meant to be just one game but ended up inspiring its own spinoff game). It helps to have committed voicework from Reeves in making a capable antihero that presents useful pathos and a capable threat to match against Schwartz in beings shaped by the people ripped from them that lives in memory (whether that means throwing a wrench in the usual playful energy or coarse gun-toting coolness). Sure, there are a few worthy quips from the friendly trio (Schwartz-O'Shaughnessey-Elba), but it does find enough time to make the flashback sequences have meaningful structure that doesn't bog itself down in too much self-importance or self-awareness (okay, one duo joke to go with a "garden" is worth it), complete with semblance of having Marsden and Sumpter (fine presences but hey, we are now in the presence of further quick creatures). The action is relatively charming for those who like their sequences with relatively bright lighting and actual time spent in space before having one little rug pull to set for the future (film wise anyway, don't try and sell me on streaming, gaming is my other pastime). In general, it is a neat sequel, establishing further beats to the mythology of speed creatures that happen to reside on Earth for fun that brings charming excitement and danger for the best installment (so far) of the film series.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, it is nice to celebrate fourteen years on the familiar grounds of the Internet for movies. A historic October to go with worthwhile theme-months in New Directors (January)/another "A" in August/the November starters/finishers will surely mean bigger and better heights for Season XV in the year ahead. Now let's close out Season 14 with a few more bangers...

Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Review #1830: Sonic the Hedgehog 2.

Cast: 

James Marsden (Tom Wachowski), Jim Carrey (Dr. Ivo Robotnik), Ben Schwartz (Sonic), Tika Sumpter (Maddie Wachowski), Idris Elba (Knuckles), Natasha Rothwell (Rachel), Adam Pally (Wade), Shemar Moore (Randall), Lee Majdoub (Agent Stone), Colleen O'Shaughnessey (Tails), Melody Nosipho Niemann (Jojo), Tom Butler (Commander Walters), Brad Kalilimoku (Drench), Krista Alvarez (Faucet), and Donna Jay Fulks (Longclaw) Directed by Jeff Fowler (#1353 - Sonic the Hedgehog)

Review: 

You remember the Sonic the Hedgehog games, I am sure. I know I do, because I am quite a fan of these games (as created by Yuji Naka, Naoto Ohshima, and Hirokazu Yasuhara), which have been published by Sega since June 23, 1991 that generally involves quick gameplay alongside springs and loops; not every game has been great, but it has a special place among video games (to the point where June 23 is a special day among folks like me). Of course, I'm also sure you remember the first Sonic film, if only because it was just two years ago (released on Valentine's Day right before you-know-what in 2020) that one got to see a reasonable adaptation of a video game series that I am a reasonable fan of, even if had a weird road to adaptation, such as a loud response to the original design of the title character. It was fine, although I would maintain that all the hubbub about a design would have been for naught if it had been an animated film rather than live action when it comes to capturing some sort of imagination. I decided to re-watch the original film before seeing this one, and honestly the quality of the film was basically the same as I remembered it, which was average, one that played it a bit safe with some of its actions that tried to cultivate a down-to-earth feel to the character that probably benefitted most from Carrey and Marsden being around. The writers for the original film in Pat Casey and Josh Miller return, with each writing the screenplay and story while John Whittington co-wrote the screenplay. 

Look, it does okay as a sequel. It manages to include a few more references to the video games that it admires well while also doing a useful job in satisfying the family-friendly crowds. The bar for video game movies is still pretty low to begin with, but I think one can say this film is slightly above the previous film despite the fact that it only just manages to scratch the surface of where one could go with actually making a film of this material that doesn't seem like a smaller adventure of the games. I find it quite odd that a film series focused on the message of family and working together works best when it actually allows itself to breathe with its video game characters rather than straining in references. The two films are quite similar in their styles, for better or worse: they have decent action pieces, a decent cast, and yet each have a weird imbalance of trying to do humor. Besides, now we have a movie of 122 minutes (twenty-three minutes longer than the first one), which only proves that some movies do need trimming - if one needs a dance contest in their movie, send a strongly worded letter to me, since I rolled my eyes.

At any rate, Schwartz maintains the engaging appeal that comes with this title character is playful in a manner that keeps the spirit of the games around without too many childish annoyances. O'Shaughnessey & Elba make an interesting pair of voices to join along the small furry video game creature crowd, since the former has voiced the character for a number of years and the latter is a fairly recognizable name actor. In that sense, they fit fairly well for the roles in general charm, one that doesn't have to force the lines through for humor (such as with Elba, who seems to have fun with it). Marsden & Sumpter may not have as much to do, but at least they fill their time in the family angle with reasonable conviction that doesn't make one waver when it comes to trying to make one believe that movies about fast blue hedgehogs need families. Carrey has continued to hone-in the heightened egomaniac that he was going for in the first film, which results in a satisfying performance, absurd enough in bombast that continues to make a proper foil (now, the part at the end with him turning into a special effect in a green-lined suit, that is debatable). Rothwell is part of the most puzzling sequence of the film, which involves a wedding played as fake that "sort of" moves the plot along (which is where Moore and Butler come in), but it only reminds me to make sure I don't check my watch often (this is also true for Pally). I should mention that even with all these little quibbles, there is at least a semblance of adventure and promise that is filled, one that yearns to keep its audience engaged without insulting them. If one expects a movie around the same quality as the Sonic film before it, they should be reasonably satisfied, and I suppose that is more than enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Star Trek Beyond.

Review #1721: Star Trek Beyond.

Cast: 

Chris Pine (Captain James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Commander Spock), Karl Urban (Lieutenant Commander Leonard McCoy), Zoe Saldana (Lieutenant Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott), John Cho (Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Ensign Pavel Chekov), Idris Elba (Captain Balthazar Edison / Krall), Sofia Boutella (Jaylah), Joe Taslim (Anderson Le / Manas), Lydia Wilson (Jessica Wolff / Kalara), Deep Roy (Keenser), Melissa Roxburgh (Ensign Syl), and Shohreh Aghdashloo (Commodore Paris) Directed by Justin Lin.

Review:

I'm sure you remember the interest generated from a new version of Star Trek. J. J. Abrams directed the first of what is generally known as the "Kelvin timeline" features, doing so in 2009 that was written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (who had gotten their start in television with Hercules: The Legendary Journeys). They managed to bring the series back to the silver screen with a reboot that tried to honor established continuity in the original 1966 series while staying fresh with current perspective. In that sense, I think it did a fine job. Four years later, a sequel followed with the same collaborators (albeit with Damon Lindelof as co-writer). The funny thing about that movie is that it is the most profitable of all the Star Trek movies, and yet it reeks of something that would be made purely to squeeze as many hack ideas as possible for such an average movie, complete with trying to pawn ideas from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan but with no sense of actual stakes. Three years later, the idea was to have Orci as director (his planned first feature), since Abrams was now slated to direct for another certain space feature, but somehow it went awry, leading to a different direction. Justin Lin started as a director while attending UCLA Film School with Shopping for Fangs (1997), although his most notable contributions are to The Fast and the Furious film series, as he has directed five of the films in the series. At any rate, Simon Pegg and Doug Jung (a duo in which each wrote mostly for television) were tasked to write the script. 

Technically speaking, it is a worthy successor to the last two films. Of course, it is also as of this year the last one to be made, because somehow making a big-budget movie doesn't always result in a certain amount of money bags (of course, paying the actors is tough, too), and it is only now that plans are starting to move for a film in 2023. Perhaps it is a coincidence that Star Trek only returned to television after the release of this film (albeit in streaming form, the most pathetic of broadcasting methods). It continues the trend of trying to aim Star Trek for a crowd that is interested in special effects and action with a sliver of plot, which I suppose makes it essentially a shinier version of when filmmakers did so with Star Trek: First Contact (1996), just with certain choices of music included. I suppose every incarnation of the series in film form also has to show the Enterprise take a beating just so one can build it all up again, so there is that. Of course, the important part is that one has a good time with the adventure, and I believe there is an interesting one to see here, despite the fact that it is the main cast that really shines more so than the villain (again though, how many times is that not the case?). This is a movie that seems quite a bit familiar with its themes of finding one's meaning in continued exploration (i.e. instead of a mid-life crisis about being old, it is now a young-life crisis about seeing the stars again and again). As such, the movie feels the best way to do that is to split the crew into their own little pairs (i.e. Pine with Yelchin, Quinto with McCoy, Cho with Saldana, and Pegg with Boutella). In that sense, some of those pairs work out better than others, depending on how much effects are present. In that sense, Pine is easily the most effective, having molded fully into the role with confidence (without as much of the hammy "curiosity" from William Shatner, if you will) that maneuvers well with resourceful charm that has evolved well from seven years prior. Urban was always quite interesting as McCoy, and he generates a few interesting moments when paired with Quinto in terms of snappy banter that isn't just a familiar re-hash. Quinto might not have as much to really do, but his little scenes involving reckoning his fate as now being the one living Spock is interesting at least. Saldana suffers the most from the split, in that being paired with a bunch of scenes involving the villain doing vague dealings about his motivations isn't really that interesting for the former and barely interesting for the latter (again, the familiarity with these characters go to a certain point when compared to when the movie tries plot for a few minutes). Elba gets to be caked in a whole bunch of makeup while having an okay motivation that honestly could do with better material beyond a twist that could probably be seen coming with a reasoned guess-maker at the hand watching. Maybe he was meant to be a second side of the whole "I have nothing better to do with my time in space" coin with Kirk, I guess. Boutella is okay in terms of curiosity within accompanying makeup and action shots, but since this film already scrounged up introducing an interesting secondary character to play off one of the castmates for more than one film (i.e. Alice Eve not being in this one), why bother? 

Honestly, the movie almost plays itself too corny with certain sequences near the end without having as many stakes as it could have - do I really need to have "Sabotage" in the background for an action shot? Its testing about the villain isnt even that clever, really, since the last one also had a Starfleet adversary that liked things better when it was militarized. As a whole, it definitely keeps interest on a moderate level when it comes to action (credit to hiring a car chase director for this, huh?) and most of its acting chemistry, since these folks have done well with capturing a majority of the charm from the old cast. However, it begs for more to explore than just cursory stakes, and I just cant see myself giving generous praise for being just fine. It needs something more than a few pretty sequences to really soar farther than just average, particularly when this is the 13th of these features; being in the top half of that list is fine, but when it is because it is the middle of quality, one could certainly make improvement. 

On that note, the anniversary of Star Trek is upon us again. Live long and prosper. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cats (2019)

Review #1313: Cats.

Cast: 
James Corden (Bustopher Jones), Judi Dench (Old Deuteronomy), Jason Derulo (Rum Tum Tugger), Idris Elba (Macavity), Jennifer Hudson (Grizabella), Ian McKellen (Gus the Theatre Cat), Taylor Swift (Bombalurina), Rebel Wilson (Jennyanydots), Francesca Hayward (Victoria), Laurie Davidson (Mr. Mistoffelees), Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap), Mette Towley (Cassandra), Steven McRae (Skimbleshanks), Danny Collins (Mungojerrie), Naoimh Morgan (Rumpleteazer), Ray Winstone (Growltiger), and Les Twins (Plato and Socrates) Directed by Tom Hooper.

Review: 
Of course the review of the worst film of the year is the 1,313th review. Triskaidekaphobia fever couldn't be at an all-time high right now. Welcome to the late night shift of a New Year's Eve doubleheader.

Of course this film is a dud. I can't even use the excuse that I went with someone to see it (my mother, when it occurred to me that I hadn't taken her to the movie theater in quite some time), because I basically goaded her (and in a sense, myself) to picking this one, because who can resist seeing...cats? As it turns out, quite a few people, judging from the fact that this is already projected to deliver losses for Universal Pictures, and it only has been out for less than two weeks. It seemed like this was a film destined for ridicule (and not much else) from the moment one got a view of yet another example of the uncanny valley - this time with cats. In fairness, utilizing CGI and motion-capture technology does seem like something that probably could've worked in making an alright movie - too bad it is utilized for an absurd mess. This is an adaptation of the stage musical of the same name composed by Andrew Lloyd Webber, with its original London (1981) and Broadway (1982) productions setting records for longest-running stage productions for several years; the musical in turn was based on T. S. Eliot's poetry collection Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats (1939), which was a childhood favorite of Webber. In 1998, he oversaw the orchestration for a direct-to-video musical film, retaining Gillian Lynne (the original choreographer of the musical), which had a few cuts and a new stage to recreate the musical with a mix of cast members from various productions of Cats that ran 115 minutes (this film happens to be five minutes shorter, oddly enough). All of this foundation that I am writing is really more to just make sure that I am not running blind into writing about a film adaptation of something that did not have much plot to begin with. Context helps sometimes - but it can't quite mask the very fact that this is a vacant kind of movie, one that will inspire plenty of giggles for the few who dare to encounter it.

Think about this - exactly who was this made for? Exactly who in this cast comes out with much dignity? One could simply just say veteran actors like Dench and McKellen, whose crucial parts have a bit more impact than the others (in the same way that one big bite of familiarity seems better than literally anything else). Perhaps one could say Corden and Wilson, who are at least meant to generate a few laughs (the result being mixed, if one is incredibly generous) - on second thought, maybe not. Maybe it is Hayward, a member of The Royal Ballet that at least clears the bar of having a better film debut than Kurt Thomas from Gymkata (1985). Or perhaps it is Elba, who seems like he is having some silly fun. On the other hand, Derulo and Hudson won't quite garner as much appreciation, if only because mediocrity is everyone's excuse when it comes to such ridiculous material (with co-writing and co-producing duties belonging to its director). I suppose Davidson and Swift do just fine - I can't even remember their time on screen. No one so much delivers a bad performance as they just seem completely lost in the ridiculousness of what is going on around them. For pete's sake, it's a bunch of actors with VFX dots singing song after song with large sets (get it, because they are cats) that twist the film around in such a mawkish way to the point where parody seems too kind for this dreck. Sometimes it really does go to show that not every musical needs to become a film - or at least not every movie needs to be done in live-action - for pete's sake, I think people would've at least tried to accept an attempt at making a cat costume (you know, like in a play). It never really feels like interesting camp either, as if big colors and a pale execution really is going to work - apparently the director finished final work on the film the day before its world premiere, which didn't seem to matter too much, since that version ended up being modified due to reports of CGI glitches. I would almost think the next folly to befall this film would be a stunt involving releasing a pack of cats throughout the movie theater to ''generate good attention'', but alas that isn't quite the case. How does one really judge this film fairly? Is it really just too weird for its own good? It shows traces of garish camp that at least makes the things around the singing-singing-singing things seem like an okay place to look forward to, but a middling attempt at an arching plot leads to confusion and overall frustration that leads to a bit of boredom. You could probably take a nap during the film and still be just as confused at what is really going on. The people who made this film behind the camera and the people who starred in the film may recover just fine from embarrassment like this, but it sure won't be forgotten in years to come. Honestly, there is only one way to describe the film: it is an utter cat-astrophe that deserves to be hairballed in the litterbox when it comes to execution, a felined-felony that deserves to be clawed out of its misery.

Next Review: To close out 2019, Movie Night ventures out and picks a Western to once again serve as the year finale with True Grit (1969).

Overall, I give it 4 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.

Finding Dory.

Review #813: Finding Dory.

Cast
Ellen DeGeneres (Dory), Albert Brooks (Marlin), Hayden Rolence (Nemo), Ed O'Neill (Hank), Kaitlin Olson (Destiny), Ty Burrell (Bailey), Diane Keaton (Jenny), Eugene Levy (Charlie), Idris Elba (Fluke), Dominic West (Rudder), and Sigourney Weaver (Herself) Directed by Andrew Stanton (#155 - Finding Nemo, #222 - WALL-E, and #539 - A Bug's Life) and Angus MacLane.

Review
Once again, another trip to the local movie theater, this time with friends, which makes the 24th edition of the so-called (by me) Theater Saga a tad more fun. 

The easiest bright side to detect is that it doesn't hinder nor ruin the first film, even if it is easy to admit that this really isn't an very necessary sequel. For me, I'm not one of those people who lets nostalgia of the first film get to me, I just wanted to see if it would be a good animated film from Pixar. While it is not a perfect movie, I did at least have a good time with it. If you enjoyed Dory from the first film, you will be in for a treat (as evidenced by the title); I was surprised that it decided to follow up the first film and not simply just be one of those "X years later", where everything had changed (save for Nemo's voice, which makes sense). The cast is enjoyable, all having good chemistry with each other (one of my favorites is Ed O'Neill, whose ill-tempered nature contrasts well with DeGeneres' bright quirkiness), with the new characters being well suited for the movie. The animation is pretty good, as is the standard for Pixar, with enough diverse fish and colors to pop just enough. The movie did a good enough job to make me not think about exactly how long Dory was separated from her parents (or how a fish gets diagnosed with short-term memory loss as a baby) entirely too much. It's a bittersweet kind of movie that manages to be a fairly good continuation while also not being too much of a re-tread. It might not get you to cry, but it will most likely inspire some sort of emotion. Was it entirely needed? Perhaps not, but it is at least a sequel that does its job nicely.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Zootopia.

Review #782: Zootopia.

Cast
Ginnifer Goodwin (Officer Judy Hopps), Jason Bateman (Nick Wilde), Idris Elba (Chief Bogo), J.K. Simmons (Leodore Lionheart), Tommy Chong (Yax), Octavia Spencer (Mrs. Otterton), Jenny Slate (Dawn Bellwether), Shakira (Gazelle), Nate Torrence (Officer Benjamin Clawhauser), Bonnie Hunt (Bonnie Hopps), Don Lake (Stu Hopps), Alan Tudyk (Duke Weaselton), Mark Smith (Officer McHorn), Raymond S. Persi (Flash), and Maurice LaMarche (Mr. Big) Directed by Byron Howard, Rich Moore (#386 - Wreck it Ralph) and Jared Bush.

Review
Honestly, the movie exceeded my expectations. And it only makes sense that it comes from a movie ultimately all about how we perceive types of people...and the fact that it came at a time like this with regards to prejudice and stereotypes. It's not merely a buddy film, or a movie just with animals in a city, or even just a silly comedy, it's a clever movie on many levels that could appeal to anyone. Of course it helps the cast is enjoyable as well. Goodwin and Bateman have good chemistry together, being enjoyable to watch not just exchanging remarks, but actually in solving the case. The rest of the cast is also pretty enjoyable, making these characters (and animals) stand out. It's also a wonderfully animated movie, especially with shots of the city, but also the look of the animals. It's a movie that also doesn't hesitate to take risks with plot and characters, and it always kept me interested in what would go on next. The way the movie talks about prejudice and stereotyping is also well done, being neither over done nor underplayed, being utilized neatly. More importantly, this is a movie that works for both kids and adults, being a movie full of creativity and enjoyment that anyone can like.

Overall, I give it 9 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: 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.