Trainwreck is just painful to watch at times. Amu Schumer is NOT a leading lady and it has nothing to do with her looks, which is what feminists will claim. She is, quite frankly, obnoxious. Surprisingly she isn't a bad actress but too often her true personality comes through and, as a protagonist, it destroys much of the film. I think she would be better suited for the obnoxious friend of the main girl. Bill Hader does a solid job but is mostly forgettable. Honestly, the only reason this film is worth watching is for the plethora of celebrity cameos, highlighted by LeBron James. They all play versions of themselves in hilarious skits that fit neatly into the plot. If it wasn't for James, John Cena, Amare Stoudemire, etc. this film would be among the worst comedies I've seen in recent memory.
Is Jake Gyllenhaal the best actor in Hollywood? Honestly, movies like Southpaw make that a question worth asking. He has delivered amazing role after amazing role recently and this is arguably his best effort. He not only physically transforms himself for roles but he makes you forget you're watching a film. Him, Whitaker, and McAdams all do incredibly in what is one of the best fight films ever made. The heart, the emotion, the plot and character development, it's all there.
While the first part of this two-part final installment was pretty poorly done, the second installment was largely redeeming. Mockingjay - Part 2 gave the series the closure fans long desired and did a great job of delivering the goods people have come to expect from the franchise. Of course, Jennifer Lawrence was once again breathtaking. Her ability to deliver such a wide range of emotions and characters separate her from most of Hollywood. What has made this franchise unique, however, is how the rest of the cast consistently matches her performance, and at times seems to even surpass her. It only took the fourth and final movie but Josh Hutcherson finally felt like Peeta Mellark. His performance in this film will surely be underrated as the franchise will get catalogued with the rest of the teen girl franchises of this generation and that's a shame because he shined. Liam Hemsworth and the rest of the supporting cast also carried their weight. The visuals were also fantastic as the continued "coming to life" of the book was a joy to see. The only real negatives with this particular movie are largely tied to the first one. Because this is essentially the second half of an incredibly long film, it felt lacking in plot development. I also thought the director failed to capture what might be the most critical scene in the entire book series. It was still in the film but it was lost a bit in the chaos. Schindler's List comes to mind in how it was able to convey such strong emotions with such simple visuals. I also feel that a similar cinematic effect should've been used at the end to truly capture Katniss' emotions as that key event unfolded. Overall though, I think this franchise will be best suited for marathoning.
The Loft had so much potential with an interesting plot and a great cast ensemble but it ultimately failed to deliver the goods. I largely blame the director here. Erik Van Looy tried to do too many things and none of them really worked. The cinematic effects used came off as pretentious and unnecessary and the twists at the end felt out of character and unrealistic. Overall it had certain strengths like solid acting and decent character development but it was not a good movie.
Inside Out is one of the best animated films I've ever seen. The creativity that went into this film is yet another example for why the people at Pixar might be the greatest film makers of all-time. The voice acting was incredible, the visuals were flawless, the characters came alive in realistic ways, the plot was interesting and surprisingly moving, and the concept overall was just genius. The only flaw was that it did drag just a bit towards the middle of the film but that's just my opinion. Overall, I think this is a film that adults might actually enjoy even more than children.
I had high hopes for this movie and, while it largely lived up to them, I felt there were some glaring flaws that could've easily been avoided, which would've resulted in a superior film. For one, Antoine Fuqua did a mediocre job with the directing role. It almost felt like he had never directed a film in his entire life, found a list of all the cool camera tricks, angles, and cinematic effects, and felt compelled to include each and every one of them. How did this impact the movie? It made it seem as though it lacked any identity whatsoever. Secondly, there is a critical moment in the final major conflict resolution that is just terrible. To avoid spoilers, let's just say that the protagonist that had been established throughout the film makes a decision that he would never make. That, combined with the plot getting a little out of hand, made the last quarter or so of the movie hard to swallow. It wasn't all bad, however, as the rating should reflect. The acting was great and fighting sequences were done incredibly well. The build up and initial character and plot development were fantastic too. Unfortunately this film suffered from having a director who wanted to do everything instead of making a great movie.
Mad Max: Fury Road was far from a perfect film but it was much more enjoyable than I anticipated. It was exciting, the acting was great, the story (yes, unlike what you've been told there's actually a story) was captivating and, while not really all that original, it felt fresh and unique in how it was told. Overall, this was very entertaining and I look forward to future installments. The negatives were that Charlize Theron has way too large of a role. Even in the trailer and promotional posters, she's clearly the star. Does this hurt the film? Not necessarily but it feels unnecessary. The story should've focused more on Max. We got almost no backstory for his character whatsoever and he maybe speaks a dozen lines. The other element that was a weak point was that some of the scenes were a bit too ridiculous. I expect some of it but not to the extent where you have a guy standing on top of a vehicle traveling at high speeds through the desert while playing an electric guitar with flames coming out of the tip. Yeah, that happens.
The Wedding Ringer was hands down one of my favorite comedy movies in years and I honestly didn't expect that at all. From trailers I thought this was going to be the least original comedy possible, merging Hitch and The Weddings Crashers into a cheesy, generic plot. After actually watching the movie, while it does have some of the elements from those films, it feels authentic and original throughout. The cast is all fantastic, with Josh Gad and Kevin Hart not having to carry the film but delivering roles that could've if required. The laughs weren't as abundant as I hoped but the film doesn't rely on them in place of content. The movie is rich with content so it doesn't use cheap laughs as a crutch the way most comedies do. Instead, it builds the humor and then truly delivers incredible comedy when it wants to. The emotions in the movie feel legitimate and the plot and characters develop in a way that makes them seem real... like if you know them and can see this taking place. Bottom line, it's difficult to explain why this movie translates so well. The critics proves once again that they don't understand humor but the actual viewer reviews seem rather positive, which is where I would suggest looking to in determining whether or not to watch the movie. For me, the refreshing take on comedy, where content doesn't take a backseat to laughter but doesn't replace it either, made for a great movie worth watching.
If you're asking me if John Wick is entertaining, the answer would be a resounding "yes". The action is fantastic throughout most of the film, the gunplay is some of the best in modern cinema, and the unique elements of the film make for a combination of intrigue and strange humor that make the fairly short movie a joy to watch. If you're asking me if John Wick is a good quality movie, the answer is more of a "meh, not really... but it's not bad." The acting is almost non-existent (seemingly by design to fit Keanu Reeves' style), the plot is about as generic as they come, and the ending is laughable. During the first 90% of the film, they made an effort to be as realistic as possible. That end sequence almost erased all of it. It was still an entertaining movie but I was hoping for more.
The first 20 minutes of so of the movie are pretty mediocre but they set the stage for the hilarity that ensues in the next hour plus, where Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart are comedic geniuses. They play the same roles they typically do, with Hart being a pint-sized black man with a lot of bark and little bite and Ferrell being the big, lumbering air head who's innocence and ignorance somehow make him endearing and obnoxious at the same time. However, those roles blend together perfectly in this movie as the two have great on-screen chemistry. The supporting cast is also fantastic and this movie is, overall, a really good comedy that most people will likely enjoy.
Ted 2 does exactly what it set out to do. It delivers a bunch of laughs built primarily on crude, in-your-face humor and it doesn't take itself too seriously. Seth MacFarlane proves once again that he has his finger firmly on the pulse of his target demographic because the theater was in stitches throughout most of the film. That being said, a comedy doesn't have to sacrifice cinema in order to deliver laughs. I think the first movie was a prime example of that, as it was a genuinely good movie in addition to being hilarious. Instead, MacFarlane turns this movie into a live-action version of Family Guy. The plot is choppy and it essentially feels like a series of random skits, pieced together to form the semblance of some over-arcing plot. It was easily worth watching because it was hilarious but I expected a quality film closer to that of the first one.
Jurassic World was a great way to reinvigorate this film franchise. The first two were incredible but the third film left a sour taste in most people's mouths so this movie had a lot on its plate. If it flopped it would've certainly been the end to this franchise for a long time until years down the road Hollywood gave it the inevitable remake treatment. However, if it succeeded in delivering a quality product that fans would enjoy, the sky was the limit. Well, lucky for us fans, it delivered a really good film. With regards to the cast, Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard do a great job as the male and female lead counterparts; Vincent D'Onofrio once again takes the role of the villain and he does so masterfully; Jake Johnson provides great comedic relief throughout the film (maybe too frequently to be honest); to be frank, the only weak part of the cast were the two child leads. In what has become an unfortunate cliche in this franchise, children were given too large of a role and they couldn't deliver the necessary emotions. The first film got lucky there... more often than not, banking a large portion of your film on the capabilities of child actors is a mistake. Thankfully this was not a movie entirely reliant on acting so it wasn't a grave error but trying to emulate the magic of the first definitely hurt the movie a bit. The film also failed to deliver quite the same edge-of-your-seat thriller experience that the first two did. A lot of that had to do with any sense of unknown being eliminated almost immediately. In the first movies, you rarely caught a glimpse of the "villains" (T-Rex or the Raptors) during the build-up of the suspense. This helped create a certain tension that really captured you. This movie doesn't manage to do that at all. Instead, Jurassic World is an action movie that has dinosaurs, humor, and solid acting. Essentially it felt like a 21st century superhero movie but instead of Iron-Man or Captain America it had Velociraptors and an Indominus Rex. The problem is, it shouldn't be that type of movie at all. Nonetheless, the action, the nods to the original film (which was probably my favorite part of the movie), and the dinosaurs devouring people makes this worth the price of entry. Just don't go in expecting it to building on the originals.
While Taken 3 was nowhere near as exciting as the first two films, it at least made a lot more sense, as far as the story goes, than the second one. This is the sequel that the first film deserved. Liam Neeson does a solid job, though he is beginning to show his age. Forest Whitaker plays the exact same role he always does but he does it well. It ended kind of weak but it was definitely a good movie overall.
Big Hero 6 is hands down one of the best animated films I've ever seen and maybe the best non-Pixar film since The Lion King. The realism in the animation, while not losing the charm associated with the genre, is stunning, the humanity and emotion in the film is superior to most live action films you'll see, and the story is fresh and entertaining. It combines humor with sadness with action to make for an exciting viewing experience. They also make you absolutely love Baymax, the big, white, puffy looking marsh mellow robot in all the advertisements. Overall, this movie is suitable for people of all ages, genders, cultural backgrounds, etc. Jump into San Fransokyo and get ready for a great film.
The Expendables 3 is easily the worst of the franchise so far. Sure, it had plenty of historic action heroes and some great nostalgic one-liners (Arnie yelling "get to the choppa" is gold) and it even had a halfway decent plot, albeit not an entirely original one. The fight scenes were a step down from the previous films and the pacing and plot development wasn't as solid, though neither of the first two really delivered on that front to begin with. I suppose my biggest problems with the movie are two key things. The first is that the film's beginning effectively erases the characters that they established in the first two. Wesley Snipes character comes in and basically points out that Jason Statham and the rest of the expendables are newbies compared to him, even though he's only been locked up for 8 years. While this could be considered nitpicking, the first two films made the team out like a group of guys who have been battle tested for years and years together. Well, considering that the first film takes place four years prior to this one, that means the events of the first film take place with the team together for a maximum of four years, and likely less. I'm sorry but that continuity doesn't vibe. The other thing that I didn't care for was the actual newbies that were introduced to breathe new life into the cast. While I think they don't necessarily do a bad job individually, I just don't think they made sound casting decisions. This franchise has been built on action heroes of the past. If you're going to go young, you need to target the actions heroes of the present. Now certainly nobody expects Dwyane Johnson, Chris Pine, Vin Diesel, Mark Wahlberg, Chris Hemsworth, Sam Worthingston, Tom Hardy, Matt Damon, or any of the other megastars of today to sign on. For one, most of them are a little too old to act as "young kids" and simply put, they are stars and don't need this franchise. The money nor wouldn't be right and they likely wouldn't dare touch the films. However, there are other young up-and-comers they could've targeted that would've made better sense, in my opinion, and they could've gotten creative and tried to mirror the megastars of the past. How about using Jason Momoa to take the mantel of the large and physically impressive Arnold Schwarzenegger? He did star in the remake of Conan. They could've even included a joke where Arnie asks him something along the lines of, "are you trying to replace me, or something?" What about Tony Jaa? He is probably the next great asian martial artist in the style of Jet Li or Jackie Chan. How about bring him in? I actually loved the idea of Ronda Rousey. Her acting chops are better than Gina Carano's and she represents a new age where women might have a chance at becoming legitimate action heroes. Who's the next Jason Statham or Wesley Snipes (action hero with more of a kickboxing flare)? Honestly, it might be Taylor Lautner. The dude is an absolutely insanely talented martial artist. Why not give him a go? As for the guy who effectively replaces Sly, I think Taylor Kitsch is twice the actor Kellen Lutz is, but Lutz did a decent job so I can't complain there. That being said, doesn't a line up of Kitsch, Momoa, Jaa, and Lautner sound better than Lutz, Victor Ortiz, and Glen Powell? I also must point out that I miss Mickey Rourke's character. He has been absent in these last two and I don't get why. Were there fun explosions and gun battles? Certainly. Was there any real substance beyond that though? Not really.
The Expendables 2 has a bunch of explosions, realistic hand-to-hand fight sequences, and guns and gore galore just like the first movie did. However, this sequel did some things better and some things worse. Looking at the good side first, it did actually have a little big better plot development and believe it or not, even more action heroes. Adding Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme to an already loaded cast and then having Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger each get more screen time were all plusses. All of the little inside jokes were absolutely hilarious, as well. The Arnie one-liners, Die Hard references and Chuck Norris jokes were fun little easter eggs for long time action fans. The problem is that this film somehow found a way to have even less character development than the first film, feeling somehow even more shallow. I actually really missed Mickey Rourke's character in this sequel. I thought he added so much to the first film in how he seemed to humanize the cast, especially Stallone's character. I suppose you could argue that Liam Hemsworth's character does that instead but I don't think there should necessarily be a limit on depth. And while those little nods to the 80's were funny, they actually took away from the seriousness of the film. Seeing Rambo, the Terminator, and John McClane all shooting bad guys side-by-side may have seemed awesome but there was simply too much of the over-the-top element in this movie. I felt the first film found the perfect balance between giving each action hero their due while staying true to making a great movie. This film, unfortunately felt like a parody of the first at times, rather than its own movie.
The Expendables is very action-packed and entertaining. There were some obvious flaws like a lack of substantial character development and a not-so-original plot. However, this movie did have some of the most realistic and intense hand-to-hand fight sequences I've ever seen and who doesn't like big guns and bigger explosions. The fact that they were able to take so many great action heroes and put them all in the same movie without much sacrifice was amazing. Also, I felt that Mickey Rourke's character was so crucial in added depth and layers to what would otherwise have been a fairly shallow film. The self-absorbed movie critics will hate on this movie because "it lacked unique cinematic effects" or whatever cliched criticism they normally say, but if you want to see an action-packed movie with a full cast of action heroes, you won't regret watching this movie. After all, the whole point of cinema is to entertain isn't it?
Brett Ratner's Hercules film struggles with a bit of an identity crisis. On the one hand, I really like what Ratner tried to do in making the myth and lore of Hercules just that; myth and lore. He made the character simply a fantastic warrior and eventual mercenary who, along with the help of his comrades, played into the living legend in order to acquire jobs and terrify his enemies. I mean, who would want to go toe-to-toe with the mighty Hercules? The problem with the film is that Ratner doesn't leave the fantastical at the door as he should've. On the one hand, he portrays Hercules as a mortal and mocks the existence of hydra, centaurs, and cerberus. On the other hand he includes a psychic who can see visions of the future and he has Dwayne Johnson's Hercules perform superhuman feats that no mere mortal could do. Many of the action and battles sequences also fail here, with Hercules leveling many a foe with a single swing of his club. This identity crisis doesn't ruin the viewing experience completely but it does hinder the film's ability to create serious drama or intrigue. This film ultimately feels a bit shallow and the underutilization of Irina Shayk might be the biggest disappointment of the entire movie. She seemed to get half of the screen time in the trailers but gets maybe 30 seconds of screen time in the actual film. That's called poor representation. Overall, it's a decent watch and one of the better live action Hercules films I've seen but it fails to live up to its potential, largely due to poor direction.
While the premise and concept of this film is absolutely ridiculous, the special effects laughable, and the plot without actual resolution, the movie still finds a way to be at least slightly entertaining. I think that mostly stems from Scarlett Johansson doing a great job with the character and the movie, however outlandish, is actually a little bit interesting. It still isn't worth your time but it isn't a complete waste of time and being under and hour and a half guarantees that if you feel that it is, at least it didn't waste much of it. I do feel that they missed an opportunity to make a great movie though. There is a time between the film starting and Lucy becoming a superhero/magician/Neo that I thought we had a real gem on our hands. Unfortunately they left reality at the door and chose to make a borderline comedy instead.
While Star Trek: Into Darkness was still a really good sci-fi film, it unfortunately failed to either live up to or exceed the standard set by the first film in this newly rebooted franchise. The acting by the entire cast, including additions Benedict Cumberbatch and Alice Eve, was fantastic and the special effects continued to be on par with the best in the business. I also thought Abrams did a good job continuing the development of the characters from the first film, making these movies really feel like they connect well. The only negatives with the film, in my opinion, stem from them not branching away from the original series. I didn't love that in the first film but I thought the "alternate universe" concept was an interesting way to stay true to the franchise source material while still allowing the writers a certain level of artistic freedom. That is no longer the case and Abrams' insistent on staying attached at the hip to the original was a weak point for me. While it felt like an interesting concept in the first film, it felt like lazy writing in this one. I really do hope they continue to build this story with more films because I love the universe and the cast but hopefully in future endeavors they leave Leonard Nimoy off of the cast list.
Jonathan Liebesman, Michael Bay, Josh Appelbaum, and anyone else involved in the casting, writing, production, or direction of the film should be beaten with their choice of a sword, a bo staff, sais, and nunchakus. I didn't think it was possible to ruin a franchise more thoroughly and absolutely than they did. Let's start from the beginning, shall we? The concept of the movie was a complete and total failure. From the introduction sequence of the film to the look and origin of the turtles and Splinter to the overall storyline to how April O'Neil's character would be integrated to the absence of other key characters (Casey Jones anyone?) to how the conflict would be established to the decision to show Shredder's face and eliminate part of the mystery behind his character... it was all bad. I would assume that after they had the preliminary blueprint for the film, they would begin the writing process. Oh man, the writing was terrible! The dialogue felt forced and disingenuous and the script made it just about impossible for any cast to save the film. The characters are not developed at all and the plot is developed even less. How about the casting decisions? Megan Fox? Really? What about Megan Fox screams April O'Neil? Nothing, that's what. Why not go for Emma Stone, Amy Adams, Isla Fisher, Emma Stone, Jessica Chastain, Christina Hendricks, Emma Stone, Karen Gillan, or Rachel Nichols to play everyone's favorite redheaded reporter? Any of them could've provided the appropriate overall look for the character and they all would have their own unique spin on the feel. Whether it be sense of humor, acting style, sensuality, etc. What they all have in common is that they all would've been a better choice than Megan Fox. Oh, and did I mention Emma Stone? Because why bother going after the one actress every single TMNT fan wanted to see in the movie when you can land a brunette with too much plastic surgery and not enough acting chops. Yeah, that makes sense. The casting decisions for the turtles was nearly as bad. Outside of Alan Ritchson (Raphael), none of the other turtles even remotely sounded like their characters and the casting of Johnny Knoxville as Leonardo may have been the worst decision of them all. So now we have a mediocre script and cast, maybe the cinematography and special effects will be good, right? Ha! That's funny. No, instead we got a combination of some of the worst shaky cam, cgi, and overall cinematography I've ever seen. Honestly, it feels almost as if some idiot studio exec gave $125 to some bums off of the street and told them to reboot this beloved franchise. Actually, no, I think they would've done a better job.
Escape Plan was a surprisingly entertaining film. Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger do a good job in carrying the predictable yet well executed plot. Their acting is as is expected in just about every role they've done but it fit the story well. There were also a couple of scenes that were absolutely hilarious, as they catered to the stereotypes that the actors have established over the decades of their careers. It felt a bit cliche at times but it was an overall solid film.
The Other Woman is hands down the best "female style" comedy I've ever seen. Cameron Diaz is essentially the lead character in the film but Leslie Mann carries the film from a humor standpoint. Her nonsensical style is a delight and never gets boring or aggravating. Diaz's character has the bulk of the depth and she delivers as needed while Kate Upton provides the stereotypical ditzy blonde with big boobs but does so while maintaining a sort of sweet and innocently stupid charisma. Honestly, my only real negatives with the film were the decision to cast Nicki Minaj as a sort of comedic relief character and the underutilization of Upton's character. Minaj annoys you every brief moment she's on screen and Upton often times feels out of place; almost as if she was thrown on screen simply as eye candy, even though the film's target audience is women. Nonetheless, this is a surprisingly great movie that most women (and I think plenty of men) will enjoy.
Pain & Gain is easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. The characters are all despicable, the plot is boring and the acting is mediocre at best. I literally spent every five minutes in the last half of this movie pausing to check how much time I had left. How they got so many legitimate actors to actually lower themselves to this level is the most astonishing thing to me. Honestly, not even the stunning Bar Paly could make this movie worthwhile. Learn from me... don't waste your time.
American Sniper is yet another example of why more stories should be told through a medium more akin to an HBO miniseries, similar to John Adams or Bands of Brothers. By trying to force Chris Kyle's incredible life story into a 2+ hour traditional film format, the story did little to no justice on Kyle's impressive accomplishments, both militarily and as a man. The result was a very jumpy and shallow viewing experience where you didn't feel a connection to Kyle's SEAL teammates or his wife, Taya. The actors, namely Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller, did the best job they possibly could've done with the script they were given. The script was the best it could've been when trying to fit into the cliched 2-hour time slot. But it all comes back to the decision to make this into a movie. It just wasn't possible. There were also some directorial decisions that I found highly questionable but they weren't major nor were they things most people would either pick up on or care about. Ultimately, this review should end on a high note though, so I will point out the strongest element of the film: the ending. The closing 10+ minutes are incredibly moving and deliver, what I believe was the entire purpose of the film itself. They leave you in awe of the man, the myth, the legend. The decision to leave the remaining credits without audio was also a genius decision. I've never left a theater and felt like I was leaving a funeral. I believe that is the appropriate feeling that this movie should portray and I commend Clint Eastwood for making that so.
22 Jump Street is essentially the exact same movie as the first film in this newly rebooted franchise. Why does that not matter all that much? Because in this laugh-filled comedy, they actually mock that fact multiple times where they tear down the 4th wall and don't even care. Sure, I felt that they overdid it a bit with this, as well as the exaggerated homosexual innuendos, but the good still far outweighed the bad. Like the last film, the sequences were outrageous but funny and the acting was just dude-bro enough to be spot on for what they were going for. Expanding Ice Cube's role was also a smart idea, as was the casting of the stunning Amber Stevens. It astounds me that she hasn't had more success in her acting career. Overall though, if you enjoyed the first one, you'll like this movie too because 22 Jump Street is essentially the exact same movie as the first film in this newly rebooted franchise... see what I did there?
The Interview was comedy gold and is definitely worth the price of renting and streaming on the line. The Seth Rogen/James Franco bromance has been hit and miss in the past but this movie was a definite hit. Most of the humor hinges on the absurd and the duo, especially Franco, delivers those scenes flawlessly. I also loved the supporting cast, especially Lizzy Caplan playing the attractive CIA agent and Randall Park doing a marvelous job portraying Kim Jong-un. Overall, while I know this isn't a comedy for everyone, I think a lot of people will be able to find plenty of laughs in the ridiculous plot and even more so in the hilarious way in which it unfolds.
Sin City, similar to the first film, a the perfect example of style over substance. It's a film essentially made up of three short stories, which I'll call the gambler, the sex goddess, and the vengeful stripper for the purpose of this review, that are loosely connected to one another through setting and a few characters. The problem is, only one of those stories (the sex goddess) is even remotely interesting. The other two range from abysmal to mediocre and are filled with lazy writing and ludicrous action sequences. I love the style and the cinematography of the film and think the acting was outstanding across the board but no movie can overcome a complete and utter lack of content. The "sex goddess" story was actually very good. It had an intriguing plot, characters will motivations that made sense, and it developed really well. The action sequence at the end was ridiculous but outside of a flying ninja prostitute, an expanded version of that story would've made for a fantastic film in and of itself. Unfortunately the other two stories dragged it down to, what I consider a rating that equates to "watch for free but don't spend money on it".
Unfortunately each successive installment of this Hobbit trilogy not only failed to build on the previous film but actually left even more to be desired. Yes, this is the film where the resolution finally comes to fruition. Yes, they did a fantastic job connecting this trilogy to the amazing Lord of the Rings trilogy through this film. Yes, the action sequences, the special effects, and the acting were all top notch. But I can't help but feel like this movie just missed in a few key areas. The characters, for example, feel less authentic than in the previous films and, being that this is the movie where a lot of death and tragedy occurs, you're not connected or attached to them because of that. It also didn't have that key character who carries the movie. While Bilbo was this trilogies Frodo and they carry the narrative, neither actually carried the film through the action. In the LOTR films, Aragorn and Legolas did that. The problem with this trilogy is that Thorin is no Aragorn and Legolas isn't featured enough to compensate for that. You end up with Dwarves without sufficient development and essentially faceless elves and humans and none of it connects to the viewer on an emotional level. I also thought they didn't develop certain characters enough in this trilogy. I'm sorry but you shouldn't have to read the book or the expanded lore in order to appreciate a movie. Peter Jackson should've done a better job there. That being said, I think this movie, when marathoned with the previous installments, will resonate better. I just don't think it stood alone enough to live up to the epic standard already established in the universe.
Into the Storm was a very surprising movie for many reasons. The first surprise is that Max Deacon, who plays one of the main characters named Donnie, carries the film from an acting perspective. Sarah Wayne Callies was marketed as the big get but Max Deacon steals the show. The second surprise was how well the special effects were, especially considering the relatively modest $50 million budget. Also, the shorter duration of 89 minutes didn't prevent Steven Quale from delivering plenty of character development. Actually, I'd say the shorter time helped the movie as it was able to dive into the action fairly quickly and make for almost a beginning to end, edge-of-your-seat tornado thriller. Lastly, and maybe the biggest surprise of all, the movie was very funny. Jon Reep and Kyle Davis, playing stereotypical rednecks named Reevis and Donk, respectively, added a great deal of comedic relief and the timing for their wacky humor was perfect and contrasted with the devastation of the town around them well. There were still some flaws. There was a void of anything scientific whatsoever, which is something that Twister, a film that all tornado movies are compared against, at least attempted. There also was a missed opportunity on some of the emotion. I thought this last bit could've made the movie leap from exciting and somewhat terrifying nature environmental thriller to deep and insightful catastrophe movie. A leap almost all of the movies in this genre seem to fail at achieving. Nonetheless, I felt that it was more than worth my time.
While still a good movie, Mockingjay Part 1 was clearly only a portion of a story and the actual film suffered for it. Everything about the movie was done really well. The special effects and action sequences were top notch and the continually increased budget is evident here especially. The acting was fantastic and the setting was detailed and felt incredibly real. Even all of the little emotional elements delivered perfectly. The real problem is that, as I previously mentioned, it's only half of a story. The movie builds to something that never really occurs and the void in action will be even more obvious when the extreme action in the next film comes to fruition. Yes, I understand that the Lord of the Rings films do something similar. The difference is that those films manage to build towards their individual climax without actually failing to develop the overall story arc. I think Francis Lawrence tried to accomplish that with this film but the source material wasn't made for that to be done, where as the Lord of the Rings movies were. Mockingjay Part 1 is still a good film and ultimately will be incredibly important in setting the stage for what should be the best film of the franchise but it is still incomplete.
Godzilla was a fairly decent film but it had so much unfulfilled potential. The first flaw in the film is that the protagonist of the film was a miserable fail because Aaron Taylor-Johnson simply cannot act. Sure, he did great in Kick-Ass but the reality is that those films are more silly in nature. Godzilla required him to deliver a few scenes that were more serious and emotional and he simply couldn't do it. Making his lack of acting chops even more apparent was the incredible acting of Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen. The other fail in the film was that they tried to artificially manufacture drama in order to add intrigue. All those things did was take away from the film. Honestly, I feel that this movie would've been so much better if it was about 30 minutes shorter. Johnson's lack of acting ability wouldn't have been so pronounced and the ridiculousness of the unrealistic drama wouldn't have existed. Those two adjustments and now we have a legitimately awesome Godzilla film.
Neighbors is one of the most poorly written and executed comedies I've seen in a long time. The entire concept is terrible and they failed completely at coming up with even a plausible premise. No, this isn't science fiction. You should not be required to throw reality out the window in order to enjoy it. Seth Rogen's typical charm is non-existent in this film and when Dave Franco gives maybe the movie's best performance, you've got to question what you could've been doing during those 90 minutes that wouldn't have been as painful. Bamboo shoots underneath finger nails comes to mind. That being said, there were two redeemable elements to the movie. The first is that Rose Byrne is absolutely gorgeous. She is stunning and should be in more movies than she is. The second is that the fight scene in the end with Rogen and Zac Efron is hilarious. That's honestly the only part in the entire film that was even remotely funny. In all honesty though, those two things are not worth even bothering to watch the film. Twiddle your thumbs instead... you're welcome.
This movie was much better than I thought it would be. Elizabeth Banks is hilarious but I was concerned with whether or not she could carry a comedy by herself. Well in this film she didn't have to because the supporting cast around her was absolutely amazing and the hilarity of each moment in the film's plot progression was just great. James Marsden, Gillian Jacobs, and Sarah Wright were all fantastic and then factor in the comedic genius of Bill Burr and Alphonso McAuley and the cast was just fantastic from top to bottom. Is this raunchy comedy going to be for everyone? No, it's not. It's more **** style comedy film with a female lead, which is probably why it didn't kill it in the box office or why the closed minded critics didn't understand it. That being said, if you have enjoyed previous Elizabeth Banks films, you'll certainly get some quality laughs here.
"I AM GROOT!" There, that's my review. Lol, in all seriousness, Guardians of the Galaxy was a fantastic movie. First of all, it was absolutely hilarious. The only superhero movie to date that I think rivals it in pure humor is Thor 2 but that was largely thanks to one person, Kat Dennings. This film has great laughs thanks to every character. From Peter Quill constantly fighting his ego to Gamora's "who put the sticks up their butt" misunderstanding to Drax not being able to understand metaphors to Rocket's abrasive edge to Groot's incredible dialoque, they all provide laughing moments throughout the film. The action sequences were done really well, as is to be expected from Marvel these days. The plot also unfolded nicely. I was worried in the beginning that they were trying to stretch the audience's attention too thin and have too many plot elements going on at once but they merged fairly quickly and developed well. I still would've preferred for this element of the Marvel universe to stay separate from the Avengers but hey, it's still very entertaining.
So yeah, The Babymakers pretty much ****. The plot had potential but was poorly executed, the acting was terrible, and the camerawork was crap. The only thing even remotely decent about this film is that Olivia Munn is in it and her insane levels of hotness don't make the movie worth watching. There are also a few funny parts scattered about but not enough to consistently deliver laughs.
The Family was a good movie and honestly, delivered about as good as it possibly could. There was plenty of humor, some great wit and "mob" dialogue, and the acting was fantastic. Honestly, De Niro was the least impressive role in the film. I loved how they featured the children a bit more and showed how their lives have been affected by the whole ordeal. That being said, the plot wasn't overly original or exciting so the ceiling for a film like this is relatively low. The only thing I felt the movie did wrong was how the family's location was discovered. To me, the entire conflict of the movie hinging on such a ridiculously coincidental happenstance was lazy writing and, while you get over it during the conclusion, it was still rather unfortunate that the went in that direction. Overall though, it's a solid film that never bores.
21 & Over was absolutely hilarious. It's essentially a lower budget and more youthful version of The Hangover and it delivers with the same type of humor. The acting is adequate enough by the main stars and the events that happen during the night make you laugh from almost beginning to end. The film doesn't take long to get into the plot and you ride the wave until the credits roll. There are some moments that feel a bit too ridiculous but they don't take too much away from the viewing experience. Overall, it's worth checking out if you want a good laugh.
Melancholia is one of the most unique films I've ever seen. The acting, the emotion, the characters, the depth, the symbolism, the art style, the score, etc. Almost every element of this film is executed to perfection and **** you into the events taking place. The only real negative was the camera work. The shaky-cam felt unnecessary and at times took away from the viewing experience, breaking the immersion of the movie. Other than that, this was simply a work of art that is tough to explain in words. I am certain that most people won't be able to become absorbed into the film. It's a strange movie and incredibly slow moving. Honestly, 75% of people will probably quit watching before the intro, which was so long it makes James Bond intros feel brief. Nonetheless, if you can sit through the various quirks, especially early on, you'll become intrigued and anxiously await the film's conclusion. Lars von Trier truly does a brilliant job.
Michael Bay just doesn't seem to understand the fans, does he? After the first two incredible films, he has completely dropped the ball on these last two. While I enjoyed this movie a bit more than Dark of the Moon, it was still a mediocre film. The acting was overdone, the plot was so full of holes it may as well have been swiss cheese, the product placement was ad nauseam, and the length of the movie was just ridiculous. After 22 minutes worth of previews, you end up sitting in the theater for over 3 hours for a film that is clearly overproduced and underwritten. Yes, the transformers were cool. The action sequences and battles (at least the ones not involving Mark Walhberg almost single handedly taking out 40 foot war machines) were well done and the anger elicited by some of the Autobots felt genuine. Yes, Stanley Tucci's character is hilarious. TJ Miller and Tucci provided plenty of comedic relief and most of it felt on point... something a lot of apocalyptic action films miss on. YES, Nicola Peltz is absolutely stunning. Bay played the jail bait card with her throughout the movie, causing people in the audience to instantly Google her after the film, relieved that she's actually 19 years old so they no longer feel like pedophiles. And yes, Grimlock was freaking badass. Combine a love for dinosaurs with a love for awesome mechs and Grimlock is pretty much the coolest thing ever. But those handful of positives aren't enough to redeem a movie with terrible acting by the protagonist, a horrible plot, and over-edited and overproduced action. The movie wasn't horrible and was at least better than the third installment but it ultimately fails miserably to capture what made the first two films so great.
I'm not going to lie, this is quite possibly my favorite low-budget parody film I've ever seen. Most of the jokes are on the money and catch you off guard just the way they're supposed to. And I'll be honest, even the acting was good. I've seen good actors try and act poorly before but this cast delivered. Speaking of the cast, Maiara Walsh is gorgeous. I hope she can break out of the low-budget niche film market and onto the big scene a bit because she's legit. If you're looking for a serious film, this obviously isn't for you but this is definitely a movie worth watching if you're looking for a cheap laugh or two or twelve.
Non-Stop looks like "Taken" on a plane but, unfortunately, it was nowhere near as enjoyable to watch. Liam Neeson is still awesome but the plot was horrible and the "twist" at the end tried to force some mediocre and cliched anti-war agenda. Honestly, this is one of the most disappointing Neeson films I've seen.
Ride Along is easily one of the funnier films I've seen in a while. Kevin Hart is the funniest man in Hollywood right now and everything he touches is golden. The only negative, to be honest, was Ice Cube. He seems to have regressed, if possible, as an actor and there were certain scenes that were just tough to watch without his mediocre acting breaking the immersion. All in all though, this is definitely a hilarious movie worth watching. As usual, the critics know nothing about comedy.
