Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

Review #2006: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3.

Cast: 

Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket Raccoon), Will Poulter (Adam Warlock), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Chukwudi Iwuji (the High Evolutionary), Linda Cardellini (Lylla), Nathan Fillion (Master Karja), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Maria Bakalova (Cosmo) Written and Directed by James Gunn (#626 - Guardians of the Galaxy and #932 - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2)

Review: 

"In the end, my love for Rocket, Groot, Gamora, Star-Lord, Yondu, Mantis, Drax, and Nebula—and some of the other forthcoming heroes—goes deeper than you guys can possibly imagine, and I feel they have more adventures to go on and things to learn about themselves and the wonderful and sometimes terrifying universe we all inhabit."

Admittedly, the first Guardians of the Galaxy (as adapted from the second incarnation of the comic series of the same name, which was created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning) was a nice surprise when it came out in theaters in 2014. Sure, the Marvel push for a cinematic universe was already nine films in when it came out, but it wasn't hard for me to be surprised that a director I had not heard of managed to make a really neat adventure. Who wouldn't want something that sounds like a space epic ensemble? Of course, it's hard to not respect a director who also writes their own stuff, as was the case with James Gunn's prior two films with Slither (2006) and Super (2010). It set up other possible ideas for, well, other things, but the important thing that I remember most is that it had a sense of effervescent fun to it that was interesting without running into a joke just for the sake of it, with Gunn having an evident appreciation for these characters. The second film, released in 2017, was probably a sidestep direction in quality, but it did exactly what was required from a sequel in consistency (besides, as a resident Kurt Russell spokesman, I enjoyed him playing a villainous planet - such is life). Six years and appearances in varying quality and quantity (Avengers: Infinity War (2018), Avengers: Endgame (2019), Thor: Love and Thunder (2022), and The Guardians of the Galaxy Holiday Special (2022) - look I can't watch everything), here we are with a third and final film with this dynamic of Gunn and company. Oh, and it is one of the films in Phase F-Oh hell, if you care about cinematic universes (or making fun of streaming like I do), go ahead, I'm just here for the fun.

I suppose the quality of the film depends on just how much imagination one has in comparison to the director when it comes to seeing the culmination of various stories that have come with these characters over the past nine years. As the longest of the three films at 150 minutes, it tries to cover as many bases as it feels it needs to do in the idea of finding new horizons without turning into the longest group hug ever, complete with stakes that are more emotional than grand. In short: it is a clever way to tie things around when it comes to the stories of these characters without making it a goodbye show or just a vehicle of over-spectacle. It does have a few moments that could be considered disturbing, but one will likely be ready for anything if they have seen enough films with the middle-ground rating of "PG-13", you might say (personally, I fall on the side of not criticizing movies that dare to push a bit when it comes to that rating that lets the audience decide rather than go trying to recommend coddling, but whatever). Besides, if you can handle the influx of staged sequences of action where people are getting beaten a bit, I think you can handle animals in a cage. When it comes to performances, each get their own respective moments to shine besides the influx of scenes spent with talking animals (these scenes of Rocket are voiced threefold, incidentally, with Cooper doing adolescence, S. Gunn doing the young version, and Noah Raskin doing him as a baby) that loops right in to one last ride for a number of folks. Of course, the fact that Gillan has had an arc that saw her go from a second-tier adversary in the first film to an actual fledged member of the team with worthwhile time to follow along with in levity that fits quite well. Bautista, to the surprise of nobody, still provides the warmth required to balance the ensemble in timing and physicality in what makes for a worthy endnote (who among us would want to put on so much makeup forever, I suppose), which naturally makes for amusing banter with Klementieff and her useful timing again. Cooper carries the film along with pathos that makes it more than just a voice on motion-captured animation, one that makes it clear just how integral he has been to the series. The flashback sequences build that climax to where it has to go, and Cooper helps that make sense. Saldana does fine in essentially playing the straight one among the folks (while reminding of the middling idea of resurrecting her character from the dead in the first place), while Pratt holds his own with self-interest and charm, one that reminds me that just knows how to time things with general presence. Poulter makes for an amusing adversary when it comes to the mannerisms that come from a flying gold painted, uh, doof. 

Do I regard the movie as the best of the three? Well, that is an interesting point of discussion, because it probably has the best villain of the three films, that is for sure. Iwuji plays it exceedingly well in the art of irredeemable villainy that is compelling to see in all of his brilliant decadence without any ploy of sympathy or false note, which is necessary when it comes being more than just a villain who likes to pick on animals. His pursuit of perfection in the face of reality and the things around him is far more interesting when it feels in sync with no pretenses (so yes, sometimes you can have villains who might seem sympathetic, but this is not one of those days, thank heavens). It is a movie with worthwhile staging when it comes to action (such as one longshot scene) along with dialogue that works in tandem with the music choices to make a vibrant film that is more a resolution to new things rather than just a definitive be-all end-all film, which leaves the folks in a comfortable spot without playing it too safe (aside from maybe one post-credits scene). In the end, the movie is pretty good in the ways you would expect from a third film in a series that closes the loop on what had started in 2014 that will make most of the folks happy (or sad if you really get into it) with what they've seen over the years, whether that is warm enjoyment in the characters or in general.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Avatar: The Way of Water.

Review #1942: Avatar: The Way of Water.

Cast: 

Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldana (Neytiri), Sigourney Weaver (Kiri / Dr. Grace Augustine), Stephen Lang (Colonel Miles Quaritch), Kate Winslet (Ronal), Cliff Curtis (Tonowari), Joel David Moore (Norm), CCH Pounder (Mo'at), Edie Falco (General Ardmore), Brendan Cowell (Scoresby), Jemaine Clement (Dr. Garvin), Jamie Flatters (Neteyam), Britain Dalton (Lo'ak), Trinity Jo-Li Bliss (Tuk), Jack Champion (Spider), Bailey Bass (Tsireya), Filip Geljo (Aonung), Duane Evans Jr. (Rotxo), and Giovanni Ribisi (Selfridge) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator, #388 - Avatar, #574 - Aliens, #606 - True Lies, #1515 - Titanic)

Review: 

 "It will be a natural extension of all the themes, and the characters, and the spiritual undercurrents. Basically, if you loved the first movie, you're gonna love these movies, and if you hated it, you're probably gonna hate these. If you loved it at the time, and you said later you hated it, you're probably gonna love these."

Honestly, I hadn't thought of Avatar (2009) too much since I saw it the one time in 2013. Aside for the countless jokes about it being a blue version of Dances with Wolves or being like Ferngully: The Last Rainforest, I didn't really anticipate a sequel coming out that would elevate what I felt was pretty average fare. It can be granted that it was a movie that succeeded on the goals of presenting an old-fashioned jungle adventure with some sort of environmental conscience that basically took inspiration from countless adventure and science fiction books that made a basic setup in order to show some really pretty special effects (if you saw it in 3D, well, that probably went double). Cameron initially stated that the success of Avatar would guarantee two sequels. In 2016 (two years after Cameron had stated there would be sequels released in 2014 and 2015), Cameron stated that there would be four sequels, all shot simultaneously (with this film being done for a budget over $350 million), for which the sequels would have sperate stories that "have an overall arc inclusive of the first film." Here is a fun writing listing: the story was done by Cameron, Rick Jaffa, and Amanda Silver, while the screenplay was done by Cameron, Jaffa, Silver, and Josh Friedman and Shane Salerno. Nine of the original cast members from the first film return for this film, which had started shooting in 2017. Trying to do performance capture underwater ended up taking over a year to do because a whole process had to be invented for it (keep in mind, actors had to undergo training to be able to breathe longer than what you might expect, and a record for longest breath held during filming of an underwater scene was set...at seven minutes).

I will give this much credit: the best way to see the film is the way all films should be seen...in a theater. Granted, as much as I don't particularly care for 3D, it was a pretty interesting experience to immerse oneself. So yes, if you want a film that has turned Avatar into a generational family saga that happens to dabble with themes of environmentalism and colonization with a runtime of 192 minutes, here you are. Would you be surprised to know that the movie is a great visual experience but only just an average epic besides that element? It manages to be both diverting and amusing in all of the weird ways that I had anticipated, one that plays off many interesting viewing moments to go along with dialogue that is either family cliche or flat-out odd cliche (hearing "cuz", for example). Yes, a movie made in 2022 looks pretty, big shock. It is pretty good, although I would hope for more when it comes to the next film. It lingers on said imagery at times, whether that involves certain moments of higher frame rate or images from the sea or...you get the idea. 192 minutes means one viewing will either prove fair for the theater experience or daunting. Eh, it was fine. Oh, right, there is acting in the film. Worthington technically does fine in the morph to "family man", albeit with voiceover lines that basically states the obvious. Saldana is the other side of the family coin of, well, doing things. Technically this is a case of the story moving over to the offspring, but I surely remember her having more to do in the first film. Lang is the highlight for me, one who is abrasive as ever but still engaging enough to see where one could at least see how people would rally behind him. Besides, him playing the exposition of just how he returns is at least interesting when coming from him (and yay, he gets to come back for more, so I can only hope he gets to do more cartoonish things - maybe he'll shoot a space whale and make it dignified). Winslet and Curtis make fairly decent new people to do the schtick of "welcome to the sea, fellow blue-ish people". I admire Weaver taking a role where she has to play a blue teenager - granted it is a decent performance, but hey, I guess it needed to be Weaver when acting with actual teens playing blue teenagers. Of course, Champion is meant to stick out like a sore thumb as the wild child among blue people, but yea, he did start to get on my nerves after time.

By the first hour, the film has established the change from pursuit of "unobtanium" to basically trying to make a new Earth for the humans while the on-screen "Na'vi Family Robinson" makes their trip to the sea (look, I know they are called "Na'vi", but forgive me if I end up saying blue people). At least you get to see the return of Lang as the villain, if only because nobody wants to see a whole trip to the deep blue sea without some sort of weirdo new blue villain. The middle hour is pretty eventful: you get to see Avatar's version of whales with the "tulkun", the spiritual blood brothers that was reminding me to wonder just how familiar it might be to something like Free Willy (1993). So yes, space whales. Take a guess what happens with the space whales when there is one outcast among them. At any rate, don't forget about the weird conflicts between the reef people (i.e. green people) and the blue folks. I'll be honest, I did find it amusingly tiresome to remember that there are three siblings to this Na'vi family alongside two adoptees. When it finally labors itself past the 120-minute mark, now you get to see a battle to save the space whales from having their stuff sucked out for anti-aging serum (yes) and being drawn out by the villain. At least the crab-mecha thing (the time for getting proper names for things is long past) is fun, because god knows the action in the last act is probably the most interesting the film gets beyond showing images in the water. At any rate, by the time you finish this mix of school movies, animal flicks, and possibly The Poseidon Adventure, you probably will be interested in just what the hell James Cameron wants to do in this "family saga", where it will continue to push the elements of where special effects can go to go alongside wondering just how self-serious this story will go. I dug the movie, but any good movie has clear elements that could have gone down with the ship with lesser hands, and this is most evident here. This was a movie about family being everything along with the message that the environment (specifically water) will kick your ass if you try to mess with it...I think. Will there be material present in the further sequels that make this even more of a true epic, or will it be something that you could lightly make fun of it (probably while doing certain substances beforehand) while looking at the pretty images? Time will tell for the third film, set for release in the late 2020s...

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Review #1724: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Cast: 

Johnny Depp (Captain Jack Sparrow), Geoffrey Rush (Barbossa), Orlando Bloom (Will Turner), Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann), Jack Davenport (Norrington), Jonathan Pryce (Governor Weatherby Swann), Kevin McNally (Joshamee Gibbs), Lee Arenberg (Pintel), Mackenzie Crook (Ragetti), Zoe Saldana (Anamaria), David Bailie (Cotton), and Greg Ellis (Officer) Directed by Gore Verbinski (#140 - The Ring (2002) and #1557 - Rango)

Review: 

The movie is based on the theme park ride of the same name (which had originated at the original Disneyland in Anaheim in 1967). It was the second theatrical movie to be made by Disney based on one of their rides, which they started with Mission to Mars (2000) that was followed by films such as The Country Bears (2002); of course, while Pirates is the only one of these theme parks to have more than one feature, Disney has continued to mine the depths for further attempts, judging by the release of Jungle Cruise this year. Perhaps it seems strange that folks in the film industry thought this would be a flop on release. Pirate movies were not exactly high in demand at the time, since there had not been a wildly successful pirate film since the 1950s, and not even Disney was entirely confident in having Depp as its star, because one supposes that his reputation was more suited for cult favorites (which amuses me greatly); incidentally, Depp's desire to work with Disney was actually because he wanted to star in one of their animated features. At any rate, Disney at one point in time had to convince themselves to not simply make the film as a direct-to-video product (imagine the title pirate being played by Christopher Walken...or Cary Elwes!). However, producer Jerry Bruckheimer (known for various blockbuster films such as Top Gun) stayed firm with making a big budget movie that could compete with all of those other blockbusters (well, this was 2003), and it was his persistence to keep on with keeping the concept art going that convinced Michael Eisner (the CEO of the Walt Disney Company at the time) to not cancel the project after seeing said designs; he was grousing about the idea of spending so much money (to which Bruckheimer stated that his competitors were spending $150 million), although Eisner did have one other point in trying to eliminate more ties to the park-ride. Of course, there were plenty of casting ideas. Can one really imagine Robert De Niro as the lead? The original story idea came from three executives at the company (Brigham Taylor, Michael Haynes and Josh Harmon); Jay Wolpert was brought in to write a script based on the ride in 2001, while Stuart Beattie would be brought in the following year for the piracy angle in re-writes (to add on to the lead discussion, Beattie wrote the script with Hugh Jackman in mind). Bringing in Jerry Bruckheimer to produce the movie certainly helped, because he did not want a straight pirate movie. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio (best known for their contributions to film scripts such as Aladdin (1992) and Shrek (2001)) were brought in to provide re-writes, since they had an interest in providing a supernatural angle to a pirate film; Wolpert, Beattie, Elliott, and Rossio each received a story credit, with the latter two receiving credit for the screenplay. 

What can I say that hasn't been said? It is a blockbuster, one that is wrapped to the gills in adventure and interest that proved to be the big ship movie for its year and ultimately its era (with apologies to Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, which is a better overall movie, but each are pretty good to spend time with). Who better to see a 18th century pirate and think the best parallel to said figure is a rock star? The movie has its edges of camp with eventful performances without becoming a silly parody or one that loses the plot, making a fine homage to the classic adventure flicks of the past while managing to stay relevant in the art of not seeming like an overt bland copy (albeit with the modern habits of trying to stuff oneself with fights on fights, or at least it seems like the modern choice for it, if you know what I mean). It is Depp that dominates the movie in curiosity, as one has already guessed. He has a daring spirit that coasts through the film with tremendous timing and swagger that certainly seems to have all the charisma the film needs (amusingly, Eisner actually thought upon seeing rushes that he was drunk); there just wasn't a pirate like the one that Depp brought onto the screen. Rush delivers well as the other piratical presence, broad and fun with needs to happen in those moments spent playing against either Knightley or Depp, having it what it takes to make a worthy adversarial presence that keeps attention without bluster. Bloom and Knightley aren't lost in the proceedings, however. For one thing, Bloom has what it takes to play the pent-up angle without looking lost (i.e. channeling a tiny bit of the Errol Flynn spirit), and this of course includes the time spent with a sword, naturally. Knightley partakes in the curiosity with spry athleticism and worthy enough timing to keep up that proves for a worthy result. Davenport and Pryce play the straight angle (wigs and all), and for the most part that works out for a few little moments of dry interest, which works fine when it comes to scenes spent either on wood or other things. There are quite a few worthy character presences here that keep the film light on its toes for useful interest, mostly in the case of McNally. As a whole, it proves interesting in its attempts to make a by-the-blows adventure ride of a film, which work out well for the most part.  Of course, it does prove a bit packed at 143 minutes (which is somehow longer than the aforementioned Master film), but one can at least see where all the adventure can lead to, whether that ranges from CG undead pirates to various other moments. It doesn't raise the bar for adventure movies or even CGI spectacles, but it at least serves its purpose well, and it does indeed make the curiosity grow for just where one can go with a curious lead actor and a hodgepodge of folks to engage in piratical spectacle.

 

Overall, I give it 8 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.

The Book of Life.

Review #1571: The Book of Life.

Cast: 

Diego Luna (Manolo Sánchez), Zoe Saldana (María Posada), Channing Tatum (Joaquín Mondragon Jr), Ice Cube (The Candle Maker), Ron Perlman (Xibalba), Kate del Castillo (La Muerte), Christina Applegate (Mary Beth), Héctor Elizondo (Carlos Sánchez), Ana de la Reguera (Carmen Sánchez), Danny Trejo (Luis Sánchez), Grey Griffin (Grandma Anita Sanchez), Carlos Alazraqui (General Ramiro Posada / Dali / Chuy), and Plácido Domingo (Jorge Sánchez) Directed by Jorge R. Gutierrez.

Review: 

"From day one, I felt the weight of all of Mexico behind me, but it’s sort of a weight I’m used to carrying. That’s what I’ve always done in my career; I’ve always wanted to showcase my culture"

Mexico has resulted in a variety of filmmakers over the prevailing decades, ones who aspire to get out into the world and make their own projects over time, whether that means in live action or animation. Jorge Gutierrez was born in Mexico City and raised in Tijuana, and he had a clear love of his culture that carried over to his work in animation, which included study at the California Institute of the Arts; his 3D short Carmelo (2000) was a breakthrough in some respects. He did character design alongside writing on a variety of animated series before getting the chance to do his own series with the Adobe Flash-animated El Tigre: The Adventures of Manny Rivera, which ran for one season. Gutierrez developed the idea for this film over the span of a decade, with original plans of optioning at Dreamworks before it fell into the hands of Reel FX Creative Studios (behind features such as Cirque du Soleil: Worlds Away), with 20th Century Fox Animation serving as a fellow producer. Others would join soon after to help produce, such as Guillermo del Toro. He wanted to make sure he made a movie about the culture of Mexico with his own brand of magic, to the point that he mandated that the animation crew not go to Mexico for research, believing that they would only find things that would make a "tourist version of a culture." 

It could be inevitable to think about this film in relation as one of two animated features released worldwide dealing with the Day of the Dead, both involving trips to the underworld alongside trying to avoid being kept under (or worse yet forgotten about), with the other being Coco (2017). One can watch either before the other and still find plenty to find satisfaction with however, regardless of the clear distinct difference in quality. It might seem a bit unfair to pick on this film, because it is a nice looking movie, achieving the basic ambition set out by its director to capture vivid animation within Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). Its picking of cast that mixes familiar voices here and abroad do fine in keeping a good head above underworld waters, at least for the most part. Luna does fine with what he is offered, which namely involves a bit of posturing and silly moments. Saldana does alright with balancing some humor involving this main trio, taking charge that surpasses Tatum, who seems a bit miscast in actually lending the right degree of banter to go with the others. Ice Cube fares about as much as one could expect from casting first-time voice acting meant for comedy - decent, but curiously placed in a film that desires something more involving. Perlman and del Castillo do make a fair pair together, while Applegate tells the story with patient timing. The others are alright, but one basically tries to lose themselves in the animation before being reminded of a silly joke or songs that come along for the ride, which again could have worked with more original songs. It has nice designs at times (such as with La Muerte), and a case could be made that it doesn't overstay its welcome at 95 minutes, and that will surely be more than enough for some. It is the structure that comes from the film in trying to have both a world of creative whimsy and ties with clichés from other films of its ilk that clouds the overall result, particularly when it comes to its unnecessary singing to tell new threads in an old-fashioned fable that could do with more mystery and less wringing overall (telling the story to an audience is one thing, literally showing an audience of kids being told this is another), which goes down from overcoming fears and achieving your own distinct destiny and yada yada yada you know where it's going from there. Ice cream can come in many flavors, but if you find it a bit runny, it isn't going to make the result better than the ice cream truck down the road. I thought the film was fine when it stuck to depicting a view upon a culture that Gutierrez obviously has a passion for with charm and vibrant nature, and if that seems more than enough for young audiences, it likely will hit the note needed for a watch. It isn't anything great, but it suits the basic needs for those who desire said enjoyment from a fable of old and new cloth.

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.

Missing Link.

Review #1209: Missing Link.

Cast:
Zach Galifianakis (Mr. Link/Susan), Hugh Jackman (Sir Lionel Frost), Zoe Saldaña (Adelina Fortnight), Stephen Fry (Lord Piggot-Dunceby), Timothy Olyphant (Willard Stenk), Emma Thompson (The Yeti Elder), Amrita Acharia (Ama Lahuma), Matt Lucas (Mr. Collick), David Walliams (Lemuel Lint), and Ching Valdez-Aran (Gamu) Directed by Chris Butler (#240 - ParaNorman)

Review: 
This is certainly a first in movie theater experiences: one without a single other audience member present besides me. As much as audiences can be weird at times, it sure is a shame to not have anybody else watching something that actually was pretty good, even if it was a 2 o'clock showing.

Admittedly, watching a stop-motion film made from Laika doesn't have too many objections from me, particularly since they have managed to craft a solid winner each time I viewed them, whether it was their first venture with Coraline (2009) or their last one with Kubo and the Two Strings (2016). They manage to make interesting movies with plenty of visual flair that works well for the eyes without reaching to bombard them too much. With this film, their attempt at adventure (done by writer/director Butler) works itself out just fine, having tinges of humor and heart and a fairly solid cast to go along with some well-done visuals. It isn't the strongest feature that Laika has made, but it fits just fine with their other works in providing some entertainment, regardless of age. Not many films can be a buddy flick with a creature like Bigfoot, that is for sure. Galifianakis is charming, making this gentle yet unwavering creature come alive with energy, helping to make for a few laughs sprinkled throughout, such as when he decides to come up with his name or such. Jackman pulls his part well enough, self-assured in a pursuit for a creature but also well enough to play a pursuit for more without too much trouble. Saldana is fine as the last part of the main trio. Fry and Olyphant make for decent adversaries, each having their own set of brashness that rolls just fine. The story holds okay for its 94 minute run-time, feeling a bit closed-in with its adventure trappings (such as when it actually reaches the Himalayas), but there isn't a sense of boredom even if it sometimes feel a bit familiar with some of its characterizations, with its beginning and climax feeling a bit more better in pace than its middle. It has a few nice designs to the places it wants to get to (such as sequences in the Himalayas or involving a fight on a ship), even if some of its landings probably don't land as hard as they could have. It at least has a decent message regarding friendship and belonging that will serve its audience well without seeming completely out of the blue or overly sentimental. It is a film that probably needs more in terms of its pursuit for its characters, but it at least serves itself well with style and some charm to make up a fair winner.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Review #932: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

Cast:
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill / Star-Lord), Zoe Saldaña (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Baby Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Pom Klementieff (Mantis), Elizabeth Debicki (Ayesha), Chris Sullivan (Taserface), Sean Gunn (Kraglin), Sylvester Stallone (Stakar Ogord), and Kurt Russell (Ego) Directed by James Gunn (#626 -  Guardians of the Galaxy)

Review:
With reviews like these, I generally try to avoid making it about the experience I had around watching the movie in a theater on opening week, mainly because I fear that it may come off as irritating to you fellow readers. But I do admit that the Marvel films (after nine years and 15 films) are generally entertaining along with being well crafted, whether watched alone or with others by me (with the latter applying this time around). The first Guardians of the Galaxy was a fun enjoyable time that had its shares of amusement and thrills, which definitely hit the right spot for me (I'm just surprised it was released three years ago). In any case, this is a fairly enjoyable sequel, and while it doesn't quite rise to the level of the first film, it still works just enough without just being a rehash. The story decides to split the characters up until around the climax (while thankfully not hinting at them breaking up or anything), and I think it helps in letting the film breathe a bit with the characters it tries to feature along with the action. The main group of heroes are all pretty well in their roles; Baby Groot is a neat highlight. Pratt does a fine job, having good chemistry with Saldana and Russell. Cooper and Bautista also do fine jobs. Rooker (a fairly neat standout in the first film) gets a more significant kind of role this time around, and he does a good job with that advantage, being quite fun to watch. Russell is naturally entertaining, and he does a fine job at delivering the gravitas one would expect playing a living planet as a character. Klementieff is also pretty good at playing a slightly naive but easily likable character that has some neat scenes with Bautista. The rest of the cast (such as Gillian and Gunn) are also pretty fine at the roles they play. There is certainly a degree of emotional depth this time around (reminding me of The Empire Strikes Back, at least in some part) that more often than not manages to hit the mark and not bog the movie down, especially when the movie has a great spectacle of effects and action to back itself up nicely at 136 minutes. Take it for what it is: Good ol' fun, with Gunn delivering a fun flick once again.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Star Trek Into Darkness.

Review #665: Star Trek Into Darkness.

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

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

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Review #626: Guardians of the Galaxy.

Cast
Chris Pratt (Peter Quill/Star-Lord), Zoe Saldana (Gamora), Dave Bautista (Drax the Destroyer), Vin Diesel (Groot), Bradley Cooper (Rocket), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Michael Rooker (Yondu Udonta), Karen Gillan (Nebula), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), John C. Reilly (Corpsman Rhomann Dey), Glenn Close (Nova Prime), and Benicio del Toro (The Collector) Directed by James Gunn.

Review
When it comes to having a good time at the movie theater, picking a Marvel movie is usually a safe bet. And that rings true once again with this film, which is a real treat. Does it feel like a pastiche of other films? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't care, this...is just a fun movie to watch. The main heroes all work so well because they're not just a team of heroes, they're a team of rouges who are all different, weird, and yet so fun to watch. It surprised that of all the heroes in this film, it's Groot that is just so delightful to watch. Even if he's in the background he still manages to leave an impression. And Vin Diesel has just a few lines to convey his character in voice...and it works. Diesel manages to convey emotion with those lines, though the effects on Groot also help that, and Groot smiling is just fun to watch. The villain is alright, Pace at least does manage to do a good job under all that makeup, and I liked seeing Karen Gillian, she did a pretty good job in a minor role. The effects are really impressive, for both the characters and the action, it's a movie that is amusing but also thrilling as well. The ending credit scene is pretty amusing, movies don't usually end on Howard the Duck, but it sums how zany this movie is, and how enjoyable it is, from it's retro music (that has a purpose) to its characters to its willingness to just have fun. Go see it, you'll most definitely have a good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Avatar (2009).

Review #388: Avatar.

Cast
Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldaña (Neytiri), Stephen Lang (Miles Quaritch), Sigourney Weaver (Dr. Grace Augustine), Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy Chacón), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker Selfridge), Joel David Moore (Norm Spellman), and Dileep Rao (Max Patel) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator)

Review
When this film was about to come out, I had never heard so much hype before. And keep in mind, it has been four years since the film was released, and I barely just got to reviewing this. So, after all this hype, does it live up to in a satisfactory way? Sort of. It does have good effects at points, which do work to its advantage, but effects aren't everything. The characters...aren't are as good as the effects. The flaw I think is evident in this film is the way the characters are portrayed, which is easily summed up like this: "The hero with a "unknown" secret" to "unlikable brute". There are of course scientists, but the film somewhat follows the Scientist Rule, which means that if you have a scientist in your film, he/she will either be ignored by a important character which proves to be important. While the characters may not have that much depth to them, the actors at least are alright. Maybe it's just me, but my favorite actress in this film is Sigourney Weaver, doing another good job in a film reviewed here. Someone once described this film as "Dances with Smurfs", and after seeing this, I can't argue against that. The film has spectacle, but this film sometimes hammers its message too much, the character sometimes feel a bit generic. Does it have anything good? Sure, but this is not a great film by any means. It's not Star Wars (1977), more of a Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.