Arrival.

Review #1628: Arrival.

Cast:

Amy Adams (Louise Banks), Jeremy Renner (Ian Donnelly), Forest Whitaker (Colonel G. T. Weber), Michael Stuhlbarg (Agent Halpern), Mark O'Brien (Captain Marks), Tzi Ma (General Shang), with Abigail Pniowsky, Julia Scarlett Dan & Jadyn Malone (Hannah, aged 8, 12, and 6) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario, and #997 - Blade Runner 2049)

Review:

"Arrival talks very little about language and how to precisely dissect a foreign language. It’s more a film on intuition and communication by intuition, the language of intuition. That’s something that I find in my work. "

It is easy to see why science fiction can reach an audience on numerous levels. It can range from speculative in its detail that can range from extraterrestrial life to the future or perhaps dealing with telling said sci-fi story that involves the human condition or to focus on an issue. This film is an adaptation of the 1998 novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang. There are quite a few details different from novella to film, such as the fact that the alien ships remain in orbit with contact done through looking glasses (112 of them) rather than twelve that appear on Earth for first contact (done in order to generate tension); the character of Shang is not featured in the novel (nor with war), and the ending is changed. Screenwriter Eric Heisserer described the change made to the ending with regards to the lead character by giving her a choice (i.e. free will) despite "what seemed like a deterministic future". Villeneuve was attracted to the novella because it was exactly what he wanted to do in the realm of making a science fiction film, and it would be one that was parallel to his preceding works that seemed dark (such as Polytechnique (2009) and Prisoners (2013), for example) as the eighth feature effort for the French Canadian.

The film poses a different approach to the usual tale of aliens and communication that doesn't pose to simplify the process of the latter but instead wants to look at it with a clear glass. After all, we are talking about a movie that features a viewpoint about language being the sticking point of civilization and conflict, and it all tries to tie that together by the point of its key narrative point midway through the feature. Of course, this relies on one enjoying the film as a journey without needing to focus so much on the destination, where the focus isn't quite where you think it will be. With that regard, it is a fine movie, but it is likely a bit too sterile to truly reach greatness. Actually, it made me wonder about other different kind of sci-fi movies about communication like Contact (1997), or maybe just sci-fi films to compare with in this decade like Gravity (2013). Perhaps the truest thing it inspires is to remind me of Slaughterhouse-Five, the 1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut that was based on his experiences of the bombing of Dresden that also happened to deal with fate and free will with its jump through time (or so it goes, since I read it about five years ago). Actually, another similar film might be The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), which involved aliens and an important message for humans. The strange thing is that each of those (minus Contact, which I haven't seen) are all better than this film. There is a confounding mystery to how much a film or novel will stick with you enough to think about experiencing it more than once, particularly with how the journey sticks with you - in that regard, I wish I enjoyed it better, because I wish it was better than just "good" along with the fact that I wish it was more interesting in provoking thought than it really is through a 116 minute run-time that should feel less tedious. Actually, it did inspire one quirk: it is one of those films that will likely confuse you into thinking you should turn up your brightness on your television, unless one does desire a "dirty" science fiction film, as the director put it.

Oh but why don't we talk about the acting, too. After all, there's only four performances to really highlight, since two spend their time dealing with the Heptapods in glass, while the other two basically spend time looking at screens and/or talking about exposition. In that sense, it is fruitful that Adams does what she needs to do to keep the film interesting in compelling depth, one that deals with the challenge of dealing with communication between two worlds with the proper patience needed to make the balance between duty and care seem compelling and useful. Renner doesn't exactly have as much to say (given the final result it is a bit troubling), but at least he does what is needed in a light touch of exposition-delivery with competence. Whitaker is there merely to provide authority (because hey, how many sci-fi films have a recruiter to help with something "sciencey" to understand), and that results in a somewhat alright role, although it seems more apparent in the first half. Stuhlbarg may have an interesting line of work, but he seems more in the background with all of those screens with stowing doubt than anything too interesting. O'Brien and Ma are used in parts, while the scenes spent with Adams and (one of) the on-screen children seems to muddle the film more than really help it. To be clear, there are aspects of the film that are interesting to go through with its journey beforehand, such as with its opening half, which does generate a row of interest both in the nature of linguistics alongside where it could go with the creatures, and the effects that come from showing the aliens are fairly interesting. It creates a semblance of tension that does in some way make one not know exactly where it will go but not worry too much about it, moving as a puzzle box that keeps turning the edges around. In theory, its message of hope when it comes to communication is an interesting one, and it will certainly stick well for folks looking for a film that doesn't want to skip the usual procedures of a sci-fi film (although it may side step other moments) without being thought of as subversive or esoteric. Of course, the borderline between good and great comes with the twist that eventually comes into play (at least the one that seals the film up, not so much just the obvious one) - it sure is a shame I didn't care for the twist, and it is the fact that the film likes to close itself on where it began that makes it seem to think it has looped itself into a perfect circle when in fact it only seems to have mangled itself into the fear of smug inevitability (interestingly, its original ending dealt not so much with language but with a solution that would need to be constructed in the next 3,000 years, but it was a viewing of Interstellar (2014) that inspired the change). In other words, it is the kind of science fiction film that aspires to be on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but it can't even touch The Martian (2015) in resonance. I don't mean to dissect the film as I do, but it is my touch of disappointment with the level of how "good" it is when compared to its relative legacy in the five years since its release that makes me do so, as I find it to be a decent look upon communication within the realm of science fiction without quite landing all of its touches. The best way to watch it is to do so without looking much into its plot details or comparisons to other media, as instead it would be best to let it communicate all on its own, which in some ways will reach with its main performance and its dealing with people and communication, for better or worse. In a sea of great, good, average, and downright awful science fiction films, it doesn't hurt to pick one in the second category like this one - just go with it on its terms and let it talk from there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

The Town.

Review #1554: The Town.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Douglas "Doug" MacRay), Rebecca Hall (Claire Keesey), Jon Hamm (FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley), Jeremy Renner (James "Jem" Coughlin), Blake Lively (Krista "Kris" Coughlin), Chris Cooper (Stephen MacRay), Pete Postlethwaite (Fergus "Fergie" Colm), Slaine (Albert "Gloansy" MacGloan), Owen Burke (Desmond "Dez" Elden), and Titus Welliver (Officer Dino Ciampa) Directed by Ben Affleck.

Review: 
"It was concealing a character-based drama centered around themes that I was interested in, particularly the theme of children paying for the sins of their parents...But wrapping that in the sort of candy shell of a heist movie."

There is always room for another actor to find additional calling in directing, particularly if they have the instinct to accomplish it well. Ben Affleck (born in Berkeley, California but raised in Cambridge, Massachusetts) had started in acting since he was a child with television such as The Voyage of the Mimi (1984) before eventually moving on to search for work after high school in film (initially with small roles before his first lead role in Glory Daze in 1995). His prominent moment came at the age of 25, where he co-wrote and co-starred with Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting (1997, which resulted in his first of two Academy Awards). The years that followed resulted in a varying quality of films, but he moved on to directing with Gone Baby Gone (2007, which he also co-wrote), which led to fair notice. It is adapted from the 2004 novel Prince of Thieves written by Chuck Hogan (born in Massachusetts that based his story upon the dubious reputation of the neighborhood of Charlestown), which was adapted to the screen by Affleck, Peter Craig, and Aaron Stockard. After a few years of shuffling in development struggle (including a failed attempt to have Adrian Lyne to direct and Hogan to write a script for), Affleck found himself attached to star and direct. He was attracted to its similar to Gone, Baby, Gone in how he could use its structure of the story alongside its characters and dialogue that could inspire him to add on to it for a film adaptation. This naturally led to research being done within the region alongside consultation with the FBI and actual bank robbers, with Affleck finding his note-taking of the latter particularly fascinating. It should be noted that there exists three versions of the film - the theatrical version, which runs at 124 minutes (as per request by the studio), and an extended cut that runs at 153 minutes, alongside with a 154 minute version that has an ending more faithful to the novel (which is more darker; I picked the original cut because that seemed like the right one to pick).

What we have is a film wrapped entirely in Boston that might as well be summed up by its opening quote involving pride in one's city despite it ruining their life - one could almost think of it as Affleck's attempt to make a city crime movie in the style of Mean Streets (1973), although Affleck has cited influences being films in the crime genre like Heat (1995) and The Departed (2006). It is a fine film building on delivering a heist and drama worth investing some time with, headlined by a usefully-crafted ensemble cast and some usefully crafted action sequences that make a worthwhile sophomore effort from Affleck. For a film that builds itself on part-heist/part-human interest, Affleck handles acting/directing just fine, displaying range in getting what he needs from his fellow actors while displaying wavering charm in directing himself that works most of its points of finding oneself apart from what was and instead trying to look somewhere else for satisfaction in life. Hall does fine in going along with Affleck in unassuming prevalence that does fine with the occasional task needed that makes decent chemistry with Affleck. Hamm has something of interest to do in terms of authority and pursuit, which he handles alright in terms of terse usefulness in that segmented time needed. Renner outshines the others in terms of hardened edge and menace that drives the film in various scenes that can be as simple as entering in a lunch conversation with Affleck and Hall. Lively does alright when quivering against Affleck, while Cooper and Postlethwaite (in his penultimate role before his death in 2011) each do well in momentary scenes involving wat it means to wrapped in a web of crime. On the whole, I liked the film in what it manages to accomplish in its heist aspects mixed in with its attempts at looking at life beyond the score that lend itself to some useful points of interest without being too wrapped up in cliché. It's a nice movie, honing itself with some realism and atmosphere for a useful film to start off another decade of heist drama cinema.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

And now, the list for the final decade of focus this year. The decade will start and end with new directors to make their first spotlight moment, which includes a few notable films for the decade we just left along with some other ones to highlight that I hope you enjoy.

The Hurt Locker.

Review #1549: The Hurt Locker.

Cast: 
Jeremy Renner (Sergeant Sergeant William James), Anthony Mackie (Sergeant J. T. Sanborn), Brian Geraghty (Specialist Owen Eldridge), Guy Pearce (Staff Sergeant Matthew Thompson), Christian Camargo (Lieutenant Colonel John Cambridge), David Morse (Colonel Reed), Ralph Fiennes (Contractor Team Leader), Evangeline Lilly (Connie James), and Christopher Sayegh (Beckham) Directed by Kathryn Bigelow (#1258 - K-19: The Widowmaker)

Review: 
"War's dirty little secret is that some men love it. I'm trying to unpack why, to look at what it means to be a hero in the context of 21st-century combat."

The artist can come from anywhere, whether for film or beyond that, no matter how much time it takes to develop their craft or find a following with viewers. Kathryn Bigelow gradually found a place within cinema with her style of handling action cinema. She had actually started out originally striving for study in fine art (specifically painting), graduating from the San Francisco Art Institute in 1972. She spent a few years as a starving artist, being involved with conceptual art, and appearing in a few short films, but she subsequently entered Columbia University to study theory and criticism in the film program, stating film as becoming "the interchange where all these ideas were intersecting.”, and she started making her own short films with The Set-Up in 1978 (while noting the two films that opened up her landscape to film being The Wild Bunch and Mean Streets in their irreverence and intensity). Since beginning her feature career with The Loveless (1981), Bigelow has directed a variety of genres that generally deal with violence or thrills of some kind,, which resulted in a diverse quality of films that ranged from cult films like Near Dark (1987), to hit action films like Point Break (1991) to ones that did not find enough audience appeal like K-19: The Widowmaker (2002) for a career of so far ten films in a career of nearly four decades.

For this film, she wanted to do the film on her own control with less-known actors (the ones you would associate as name actors in Fiennes and Pearce are here less than ten minutes, and even less for Morse) and filming in the Middle East (which was done in Jordan), which would entail some extremely hot conditions for its crew (particularly for those wearing bomb-proof Kevlar. For me, the only thing that I was really curious about was to see how it fared in its dealings with war and the people around it in the context of its decade (particularly within world events). The film was written by Mark Boal, a journalist that previously had one of his articles turned into a film that he co-wrote with In the Valley of Elah (2007). Boal was embedded with troops and bomb squads for a time in 2004 in Iraq, and he used those observations and interviews to make the script, and he would also serve as a co-producer. What we have here is a film wrapped in tension and careful planning for people who move toward danger rather than run from it. In that sense, Renner does quite well in his reckless edge that suits the desire to stay on the pulse that feeds upon the pressure on his hands with calm conviction. Mackie goes along with well-mannered effectiveness in the simple act of trying to maintain oneself under pressure that might also resonate in some way with perspective like Renner if one thinks about it in some way. Geraghty certainly ranks as the reserved one of the main group, but he holds his own in trying to maintain one's sense of self with the unpredictability and brazen nature of what happens in these fragmented moments here. It wraps itself in modern warfare with fair conviction in capturing what is necessary in intricate experiences with our main trio of actors that resembles documentary-style filmmaking at times without becoming spectacle for the sake of it or wrapped up in fervor of too many message-making - leaving it to the viewer for better or worse. Its a fragmented film, wrapped with its trio with occasional perspective to the surroundings around them while focusing on the circumstances (and tensions) that wind them up instead. In this case, I would say it makes a good experience in ferocity for 131 minutes that captures the drive necessary in some way to carry on with its tour of service without becoming consumed in macho fervor that connects the dots in sobering interest for adrenaline-laced perspective that makes a useful curiosity for its time as a middle-ground winner.

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.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

Review #1117: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation.

Cast: 
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Simon Pegg (Benjamin "Benji" Dunn), Jeremy Renner (William Brandt), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust), Alec Baldwin (Alan Hunley), Sean Harris (Solomon Lane), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell), Simon McBurney (Atlee), Tom Hollander (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), Zhang Jingchu (Lauren), and Jens Hultén (Janik "The Bone Doctor" Vinter) Directed by Christopher McQuarrie.

Review: 
Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation manages to capture the essence of its main hero with a line that also best fits the franchise in that it is the living manifestation of destiny. It is the destiny of these films to persist in being made after two decades with a consistency and execution that makes for a excellent piece of entertainment. Once again, a new director is at the helm for the fifth film with McQuarrie, whose previous credits include the Academy Award winning screenplay for The Usual Suspects (1995) along with un-credited re-write work on the previous film. It's not hard to say that this is a brilliantly made popcorn flick, filled with setups and sequences that certainly linger on the eyes for the film's benefit. Nothing does this better than the opening involving the plane, with Cruise hanging off a plane in a field, which is certainly an energetic thing to view just as much (if not a bit better) than the Burj Khalifa tower sequence from the previous one. Cruise seems as resilient as ever to be engaging to watch on screen, whether dealing with the plot or trying to keep up with the action (and acting accordingly), being as calmly collected as ever. It is nice to see Pegg once again, having a spunky energy that certainly clicks well when the movie requires it, and the climax uses him to helpful effect. Renner handles himself pretty well for the times needed. However, it is Ferguson who helps steal the show, proving capable in the action scenes while being interesting to follow throughout, particularly when interacting with Cruise. Baldwin does fine with his time on screen, as is the case with Rhames. Harris does a pretty good job as the villain, having a fair amount of menace to him that works handily enough. The film builds itself on its action sequences while sprinkling in its plot without being ineffective in delivering something solid worth watching. It isn't the strongest spy flick by any means, but it won't overstay its welcome at 131 minutes. The climax is fairly satisfying, not degrading itself into too many annoying action cliche, ending itself handily enough. I enjoyed the movie for delivering what it promised - an exciting action piece with a few clever parts and some handy standouts, most of all being Cruise, who certainly has stayed consistent with this franchise in its run over these films. This will work well for anybody who has enjoyed these films or enjoys seeing some fine action and stunts sequences.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Captain America: Civil War.

Review #796: Captain America: Civil War.

Cast
Chris Evans (Steve Rogers / Captain America), Robert Downey, Jr. (Tony Stark / Iron Man), Scarlett Johansson (Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow), Sebastian Stan (Bucky Barnes / Winter Soldier), Anthony Mackie (Sam Wilson / Falcon), Don Cheadle (James "Rhodey" Rhodes / War Machine), Jeremy Renner (Clint Barton / Hawkeye), Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Paul Bettany (Vision), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Paul Rudd (Scott Lang / Ant-Man), Emily VanCamp (Sharon Carter), Tom Holland (Peter Parker / Spider-Man), Frank Grillo (Brock Rumlow / Crossbones), William Hurt (Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross), Daniel Brühl (Helmut Zemo), and Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross) Directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (#571 - Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

Review
One could make the argument that you could make a guess as to what will happen in the movie given the seemingly never ending progression of the Marvel Cinematic Universe from phase to phase, year after year. But I always try to go into these movies with at least some sort of open mind and try to see if I will enjoy what are currently the best made movies of this generation. The case still stands true with Civil War. While I think that Winter Soldier was a slightly better movie in terms of plot, Civil War manages to keep the entertainment flow going with enough action, charm, and bits of interesting discussion. It is hard to not compare this with the other film (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice) released earlier in the year about superheroes fighting against each other, but it is evident that this film did the better job in the departments that matter most: Setting up the conflict that leads to a fight and the actual fight itself. The progression of these films mean that one can see the layers of disagreement through the main two leads and actually emphasize with both sides (for the most part) and their viewpoints.

Sure, you can pick a side, but the movie marches on regardless, with expert juggling of all of these characters also being a key benefit. The villain this time around isn't easily apparent, but his motivations are least coherent enough, tying in well to the theme of the movie, involving the collateral damage that the Avengers leave in their battles (which while sounding like a no-brainer does make a bit of sense in the film). The usual castmates are excellent, with Evans and Downey being excellent main leads. Boseman and Holland are our new additions to the main cast, and they both make excellent impressions, with the latter (who is barely older than I am) especially standing out, with all the wise cracks one would expect from Spider-Man. Like the other Marvel movies before it, there is a certain level of fun amidst all of the mayhem, which makes up for a 2 and a half hour run time, although it certainly doesn't feel that long. Civil War manages to do its job effectively while not over-stuffing itself too much, and I certainly enjoyed it enough.

For reference, this is #23 in my (seemingly longrunning) Theater Saga, this time with friends, with this experience being pretty good.

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 8 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: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Review #128: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.

Cast
Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Jeremy Renner (William Brandt), Simon Pegg (Benjamín "Benji" Dunn), Paula Patton (Jane Carter), Michael Nyqvist (Kurt Hendricks), Vladimir Mashkov (Anatoly Sidorov), Samuli Edelmann (Marius Wistrom), Ivan Shvedoff (Leonid Lisenker), Anil Kapoor (Brij Nath), Léa Seydoux (Sabine Moreau), Josh Holloway (Trevor Hanaway), Pavel Kříž (Marek Stefanski), Miraj Grbić (Bogdan), and Ilia Volok (the Fog) Directed by Brad Bird (#083 - The Iron Giant)

Review
This film is the fourth in the franchise, returning with a bang and more. The film uses its chances well, making the film look impressive (Especially with the Burj Khalifa sequence) Pegg does a good job, along with Cruise and Patton, as the film makes sure to inject a bit of humor into the film, making this a useful installment into a franchise that's still chugging after 16 years (1996 by Brian DePalma, 2000 by John Woo, 2006 by J.J. Abrams) with good directing by Brad Bird (His first live action film), making this an excellent film overall.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.