Movie: Justice League (2017)

Rating: C

If you want to watch this movie, stop reading the reviews (I suppose, that DOES include this one). Not so much because reviews inevitably include spoilers, but reading reviews for this movie actually spoils the movie.



If you don't go in to this movie with any expectations, it's not too bad of a movie. It's entirely watchable. Too many people reviewing this movie include all the issues they had during the production of the movie. I'm just here to talk about what happened on screen.

Sure, there are plot holes, missing bits to this movie, and some spotty CG, but it's still watchable. It's pretty good stylistically, they've done well portraying the characters, and there are some pretty awesome action moments (notice I did not say sequences).

I've always thought that DC does a pretty good job of tackling psychological struggles of its heroes, and Justice League does kind of try to attempt this. The biggest problem with this movie is that the major players in this movie really didn't get enough of a backstory.
I was fine with that with them doing this with Wonder Woman in Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) because she was a bit of a mystery to Batman and Superman. I'm also fine with them doing this with The Flash here because his story hasn't really begun and he was more of a bit player this time around.
But Aquaman and Cyborg are pretty big parts of this movie, and there is just a cursory introduction to their characters. You don't feel any attachment to them whatsoever. They feel like they were just dropped into the story.

The DCEU needs to stop rushing to catch up with Marvel, and just do their own thing. They built up each of their major characters before putting them all together for a team up.

Movie: The Hangover Part III (2013)

Rating: D

The biggest problem I had with Part II in what's now the Wolfpack Trilogy was that it was a lazy derivative of the first installment. So I was pleasantly surprised when the movie unfolded and was apparent that this last installment would not be yet another derivative of that first flick.



That being said.... I really don't believe Todd Phillips pulled it off. It was supposed to be an epic finale. I suppose that that was the direction it was headed towards, but it never seemed to actually get there. And that's really the best way of describing this movie. It's neither here nor there. It's not funny enough to be a comedy and it's entirely not epic enough to even be in the vicinity of being epic.

And I know that this last bit is also neither here nor there, but I entirely didn't see enough of Jamie Chung. Haha.

Cheers.

Movie: Star Trek - Into Darkness (2013)

Rating: B

Hrmm....Apparently I didn't write about the first installment of this NEW Star Trek franchise. But I've got to say, I much prefer J.J Abrams at the helm of a movie over his contributions on the small screen.



To boldly go....Where plenty of movies have gone before. There really is nothing new in this movie. That being said, who cares?! This movie is fun, it's well paced, and entirely action packed. While you don't have to be a trekkie to enjoy this film, however, after I watched this film, I went and watched the Star Trek movie from the original movie series and realised its correlation. I think that fans of the Star Trek franchise will love the homage it pays to its predecessor. Absolutely brilliant.

While I always love the easter eggs new movies pay to their predecessors, I'm starting to feel that the scripting is starting to be a little much; to a point where some of the bantering is becoming a little repetitive and becoming rather cliche.
That being said, I've got to say, the more I see Simon Pegg, the more I think that he's a frigging genius. haha. Total hilarity.

Cheers.

Movie: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Rating: B+

Probably the most anticipated movie of 2012 also contained the most IMAX footage ever used in a feature film. Sure, plenty of movies, including this year's The Avengers, was converted into IMAX, but director Christopher Nolan actually used IMAX cameras to include over an hour of actual IMAX images for The Dark Knight.



The result is palpable. So if you do get a chance to see the movie in IMAX, it's definitely worth giving yourselves a treat to fully experience the clarity, vividness, and perfection that is IMAX.

But that being said, while I absolutely loved the movie, it really bothers me when there are plot holes. I'm going to try to say this without issuing a spoiler alert. Batman's injuries vs. recovery. Just doesn't add up. Another thing that bothers me is when symbols are overused that it becomes trite. Without giving away too much of the 2h45min movie, was it really necessary to have the ENTIRE national anthem sung? Granted, DC Comics really does cater to a more patriotic crowd, but this was overkill.

I love watching Christopher Nolan's movies and I think he's a great director. But if you watch the first two in this particular Batman trilogy, Gotham is a much different place. Yet, in THIS finale of the trilogy, Gotham City looked decidedly like New York. I just thought that the inconsistency was too great. Of course, did it detract from the movie itself? No. Just me being picky.

And my final problem with the movie. It really might have been a good idea to include subtitles when Bane spoke. And he spoke a lot. With the muffled mask, it was very difficult to understand him at times.

Aside from these things, the finale was everything that we've come to expect of Christopher Nolan's movies. I must say that I really enjoyed some of the character twists that they provided, ie, using the Selena Kyle character...you know, before she was officially the "Catwoman".

~Cheers.

Movie: Underworld: Awakening (2012)

Rating: C

One thing I really like about flights these days. It's a great opportunity to catch up on movies. Especially movies that you weren't quite sure that you want to spend money on at the cinema. Especially movies that cater to some guilty pleasure. Particularly true, for movies like Underworld: Awakening.



Like the rest of the sequels in this series, it's not a very good example of cinematic brilliance. It's not even an example of cinematic mediocrity. What it is, is just fun to watch.

Fun to watch Kate Beckinsale kick some butt in her skin tight black leather (well, probably faux leather). If you're expecting anything else from this movie or its franchise? You might want to get your head examined. You're delusional.

Granted, she's young. Granted, she's green. And granted, this role doesn't allow for her to fully explore her acting abilities, but the role of Eve, played by India Eisley was fairly lacking. It really felt like they just plucked a girl out of a crowd and put her into the movie. Of course, she only has but a few titles under her belt, so who knows...maaaayyybee she'll grow into it. Maybe. I guess we'll see huh.

~Cheers.

Movie: Men in Black III (2012)

Rating: B


Most sequels come out a couple of years after the previous on. But the first sequel to Men in Black (MIIB) was so bad that even after watching the preview again, I can't remember what it was about. It was so bad, that I almost didn't watch this rendition. It was so bad, that I think majority (myself included) of people who have critiqued this movie have pretty much given it a free pass. Men in Black III was finally produced and released 12 years after MIIB.



Thankfully, Men in Black III delivers as a serviceable follow up. Will Smith reprises his role as J, the smart alec MIB agent. And Tommy Lee Jo--- well... Josh Brolin playing the role of (young) Agent K. And I have to say, Brolin was amazing. At no point did I think that Brolin was Brolin. Totally believable as the younger version of Agent K.

The humour's a little different, and perhaps that was in part because the bulk of the movie was placed in 1969. The movie's a bit more mature, seemingly catering to an older audience, which makes sense, since younger audiences probably wouldn't connect with the 60s anyway.
It's not QUITE as silly as its predecessor, but still funny nevertheless. The interplay between Brolin and Smith is really, almost as good as it was between Smith and Jones in the original.

~Cheers.

Movie: Marvel's The Avengers (2012)

Rating: A+

Unleash the power of the (comic book) geek! Seriously, if this popcorn movie doesn't unleash your inner geek, nothing will. And while the Hulk isn't a man of many words, he totally steals the show.



I was a little worried that this movie was going to be a mish mash of heroes thrown together into a half baked ensemble movie. But man was I pleasantly surprised. The action was fantastic. The visuals were fantastic. And the interaction and chemistry between the characters was absolutely magnificent. Yes, this is a comic book movie, and yes it's larger than life, and absolutely yes, this is fantasy, but for 2 hours and 22 minutes, this was YOUR world. It sucked you in, spat you out, and made you want more. It was action packed, it was fun, and it will rock your world.

The only negative thing that I can say about this movie is that while Robert Downey Jr., and Chris Evans are probably the supposed to be the main characters of this movie, it was Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk that totally stole the show. And really, the show doesn't really start until The Hulk covers the screen...Literally...the whole screen. And after that, the rest of the movie is just an action packed, mixed in with great dialogue and interaction, coupled with copious amounts of total hilarity.

As with each of the introductory movies over the past four years, there IS something to see at the end of the credits. It.....uh....might not....uh....be ....hrmmm....what you were expecting tho. hahaha =)~

~Cheers.

Movie: Green Lantern (2011)

Rating: C+

Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.



Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.

As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.


To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.

Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....

Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)

Rating: A-

Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.



The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.

I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.

Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!

Movie: The Hangover Part II (2011)

Rating: C


Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).



I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~

The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.

Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.

But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?

~Cheers.

Movie: Predators (2010)

Rating: C

After the past few attempts of futility at trying to keep the Predator franchise alive, I didn't think that I'd have anything good to say about this rendition. Let's not kid ourselves, it's still a Predator movie and you're only watching it for one reason. And for that, Nimrod Antal does an admirable job.



Sometimes I wonder if Danny Trejo would find work without Robert Rodriguez. Sorry... A little non sequitur perhaps, but a random thought from this movie. Haha. Anyway, it's a little hard to get over some of the choice of actors; in particular, Adrien Brody as a Merc, but if you get over that, get over the gutteral cliche one liners and stop trying to make sense of the whole thing, Predators does have its moments.

For one, I never figured Alice Braga to be a military woman, but she's actually a pleasant surprise in this role. For another, the story does attempt to throw you a few surprises. And for a few fleeting moments, you get Lawrence Fishburne. Why? I have no idea. But there he is. Haha. It has its share of gun fights and fight scenes, trying not to be too repetitive, but let's face it. It's got nothing on the original.



~Cheers.

Movie: Thor (2011)

Rating: C+

You gotta hand it to Marvel for having the patience and drive in order to bring The Avengers to the big screen for 2012 (scheduled). It seems that every character that will be in The Avengers, will have their own introductory movie previous to The Avengers release date.



I know that Marvel Mythology isn't entirely parallel with Greek Mythology, but the role of Loki threw me for a loop. In Greek Mythology, Loki is the God of Mischief. He's not evil, he's just mischievous (which does tend to mean that he does bad things). But Marvel portrays him as evil. Anyway. The effects and the visuals of the movie are stunning. But I didn't really feel the connection between Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth.

Dealing with Marvel means that you have the wealth of decades of material, so much so that trying to stuff it all down 2 hours, just doesn't do it justice. While I thought that they made a valiant attempt, I felt that the story was too rushed. The relationship between Thor and Loki seems glossed over. The relationship between Thor and Jane Foster forms in the blink of an eye. Even Thor's return to Odin's favour almost seems too easy.

But, let's not forget WHY we're watching it. We want the back-story leading up to The Avengers. And this is a valiant effort into the introduction of Thor. So far, in the whole Avengers saga, there have been reason to sit through the credits. This one is no different. You want justification for sitting around until the credits are done? I'll simply say that you find out who will be in next year's Avengers.

~Cheers.

Movie: The Fast and the Furious 5 ... a.k.a Fast Five (2011)

Rating: B-

Who would have thought that this franchise would have lasted this long? But forget about acting, forget about character development, forget about the laws of physics and you have an action packed, edge of your seat, car crashing, testosterone induced, sweat drenching, extreme version of Ocean's Eleven.



It almost feels like Justin Lin went to the stunt team before he went to the writers...And succeeded. With barely a slow moment in the movie, each stunt performed is more outrageous than the previous. Bringing in most of the main characters from all the previous Fast and the Furious movies also allowed for the movie to fore-go the need for any character development and simply insert the characters as necessary for this film, giving him the flexibility to just focus all attention on blowing things up and mixing in generous amounts of hilarity.

Oh...and by the way, for you fans of the franchise...stick around for the credits.

~Cheers.