Five years of assembling; four superheroes; one epic movie!

“The Avengers.”

Over the past twelve years or so, the market has been pummeled by superhero films.  It’s gotten to the point where Marvel itself has become a studio all on its own, with the resources and corporate strength to make its own products and keep them uniform.  In the past five years, the releases of “Iron Man,” “The Incredible Hulk,” “Thor,” and “Captain America” have all been carefully planned and marketed so that the ultimate mash-up of superheroes can be brought to the big screen.  With so many characters from so many different films by so many different directors starring so many different actors, I imagine that bringing all of these storylines together and making them coherent could have been disastrous under lesser talents (or, it could have easily been ruined by too much post-production tampering by studio executives, as it was with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”).

Rest assured:  “The Avengers” is a well-oiled and carefully-constructed machine, which successfully pumps out the fun.  The action in the first half generally doesn’t disappoint; there are a whole bunch of impressive fight scenes among the different superheroes, and even among the minor characters, before things shape up and lead into a massive grand finale.  The mass destruction throughout the finale is truly awe-inspiring, and each hero gets their fair share of action.  But what really makes this film work is that the tone is perfect for this type of summer blockbuster.  There is enough humor throughout to keep the story light and fun, and to keep it accessible to all audiences.  It is every bit as fun of a superhero movie as every other superhero movie before it; as ambitious as the project is, however, it comes quite close to being the end-all be-all superhero film.

Fortunately, the film is not entirely shallow either.  If generally follows the same plot formula of “The Ultimate Avengers” cartoon that came out in 2006; this film version is far more in-depth, especially with its roots dug firmly in the previously-mentioned Marvel films.  Chances are that if you haven’t seen these other films, you may be missing out on some minor details concerning who the characters are, where they come from, what SHIELD is exactly, and how the various artifacts came together for “The Avengers.” Going into it blind may leave a few folks in the dark.  But even if you have the most basic knowledge of who the different characters are, you should be able to pick up on it and just enjoy the ride.  Even when the thrill ride isn’t running at full speed, the film manages to keep things rolling, thanks largely to the characters and their complex interactions.  Each character remains true to themselves, with hardly any scene or line that can be considered stupid or out-of-character.  Each character serves to reinforce the idea that the Avengers team is dysfunctional and dangerous.  There are probably some finer points that get buried (such as the fate of Betty Ross, or Jane Foster (which is mentioned just briefly), or Steve Rodger’s adjustment to the 21st century (which was cut from the film)); ultimately, there’s enough to the film where these points don’t even come to mind that much.

Cinematically, the film is every bit as slick and polished as the other Marvel films.  Photography is very solid, and looks good all the way through.  Editing is good.  Acting is top-notch:  just about every actor brings their A-game to the table.  Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, and Samuel L Jackson all inhabit their characters very well.  Mark Ruffalo is not bad playing Bruce Banner; I do prefer Edward Norton and Eric Banna in the role, but Ruffalo’s performance is earnest and satisfying.  Writing all around is great; the dialogue is often witty, and maintains its focus on the characters perfectly.  This production spares no expense on the sets, props, costumes, and special effects.  Music isn’t bad either.

This film met my expectations perfectly.  Chances are that, thanks to the hype, some may find this film overrated.  Regardless, I don’t really see anything wrong with this film, and I feel no shame in granting it a perfect score.  Recommended!

5/5 (entertainment:  5/5, story:  4.5/5, film:  4.5/5)

Read More

Time really is money.

"In Time"

How’s this idea for a scary future: everybody who lives past 25 years gets one more year to live, and all their time can be earned and spent as currency. It can be quite interesting to see this scenario and how it’s implemented; if nothing else, the film does a fine job of presenting its main concept and sticking with it. There is a fair amount of action (some fighting and car chases), but nothing that really stands out. Fortunately, the film never really bored me at all.

I found the story and concept to be quite interesting. Anybody who knows sci-fi inside-out may immediately draw some parallels to “Logan’s Run,” and given the standard dystopian setup, they may find this film quite predictable (although throughout the last hour or so, I felt this was some kind of sci-fi version of “Bonnie and Clyde,” and I thought it was cool that way). With the premise, there are a lot of inherent implications that can be drawn (with some help from the script, which makes clever use of time-themed phraseologies); the film seems to occasionally hint at the audience that time is short, time is precious, and we gotta make the most out of what little time we have. It also goes on to underscore the dichotomy between the rich and the poor (as do most dystopian stories). At the core, the story has a serviceable set of characters; they’re not mind-blowingly deep, but they aren’t totally boring either.

The film is competently made, with decent photography and editing. Acting is a mixed bag; it can be hard to take Justin Timberlake seriously, but he does have his moments. Amanda Seyfried is gorgeous and I loved watching her in her role; Cillian Murphy was pretty darn cool as the Timekeeper. Writing shows a few good strengths and a few bad weaknesses. This production has decent-looking sets, props, and costumes. It’s one of those movies that uses modern locales and props to show an ultramodern setting. Music is alright.

In the end, I didn’t really see that much wrong with this film.  I'd recommend it as a rental for anybody who's interested.

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4/5, film: 4/5)

Read More

"People have an innate desire for conflict."

"Sherlock Holmes:  A Game of Shadows"

This film is pretty much more of the same. Those who enjoyed the first “Sherlock Holmes” will likely enjoy this as well, with its wild visual flair, its explosive action scenes, and its amusing chemistry between the two leading characters (plus, some added chemistry with the villain). Those who didn’t like all this probably won’t like this sequel either.

You can definitely expect action in this film; there are plenty of fight scenes, some wild gunfighting, and a lot of stylish slow-motion scenes. I think it’s all pretty darn cool, but chances are that all this emphasis on style and action will be off-putting for many folks.

As far as the story goes, it’s a little disappointing to see that it’s very linear, with none of the mystery or intrigue that went into the first film (and all the classic stories). It works as a straightforward actioner, but not so much as a mystery. In fact, it reminds me a lot of “Tomorrow Never Dies.” Fortunately, the story continues to put the emphasis on the characters; Sherlock Holmes is as manic and ingenious as before, if not moreso, while Watson continues to serve as a quality foil character. What will really make this story worthwhile will be the revealing and exploration of Moriarty, whose intellect matches Sherlock’s, and causes the two to become entangled in a form of intellectual mortal combat (which takes on a literal interpretation in the film). It’s generally fun and satisfying, but still leaves a lot of room for further exploration (I’m assuming a third film will come along and form this into a cohesive trilogy).

Cinematically, it has much the same style as the first film. It’s very stylish with lots of interesting camera angles and trickery, and interesting editing. Acting is still very strong, with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law reprising their roles impeccably. Jared Harris plays Moriarty like a classic megalomaniac villain (which is good). I rather enjoyed watching Noomi Rapace in her role. Writing is about as strong as the first film. This production has an insane amount of quality sets, props, and costumes, with quality special effects. Music is still very folky (and it’s good that way).

Recommended only if you liked the first film.

4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 3.5/5, film: 4.5/5)

Read More

Mission finally accomplished?!

"Mission Impossible:  Ghost Protocol"

After one-and-a-half decades, this is now the fourth film in the series, and the series overall has had massive ups and downs. The first original film has memorable moments, but the sum of its parts never was greater than the parts themselves. The second film is just whack. The third managed to tie in quality substance and action, with only some annoying shakey-cam to disrupt the experience. As such, I believe this fourth installment is the best of the series; it finally manages to weave action, storytelling, and style in a seamless fashion.

The film starts off quite fast and remains evenly-paced throughout. There are some excellent action setpieces throughout, filled to the brim with pursuits, chases, and fights. Even when the characters aren’t running for their lives, the espionage proves very intriguing as various situations are set up that require the characters to use their skills to get by.

The story for this doesn’t have the same investment in the characters as “MI:III” did (especially since there is no standout villain), but quality characterization and progression still exists in the background. What really matters here is the political intrigue, which cleverly sets up a scenario where the characters lose their backing organization and they are all forced to complete their mission with limited tech (although what tech we see is still pretty damn cool) and no backup. It’s easily one of the more satisfying spy thrillers in the genre, and certainly one of the most exciting; it’s just not quite as deep in terms of characters or themes.

Thankfully, the photography and editing for this film are quite sane and stable; the camera is not as jittery as “MI:III.” Acting is pretty fun all around; Tom Cruise generally has his ups and downs, but I certainly enjoyed watching Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, and Jeremy Renner in their roles. It was kinda interesting to see Michael Nyqvist as the villain. Writing is decent. This production spares no expense on the sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. Music is pretty cool.

4/5 (entertainment: 4.5/5, story: 4/5, film: 4/5)

Read More

"Everyone loves a good underdog."

“The Hunger Games.”

Every now and then, there comes a sci-fi film that pushes the boundaries of what is considered civil, for even though civilization may prosper, there will always be a demand for violent entertainment.  Films that portray futuristic death-matches for sport could probably be counted only in the double-digits; titles like the original “Rollerball,” “The Running Man,” “Battle Royale,” and the “Death Race” remake typically dominate this obscure corner of sci-fi.

In this niche, “The Hunger Games” might be the most accessible film ever.  It doesn’t indulge on gory, graphic details the way these other films do; most deaths in this death-match are off-screen, obscured, or just plain bloodless.  There’s still enough roughness to emphasize the harrowing nature of the actual Hunger Games; some might even say it’s better that way.

It takes a good hour or so to get to the games; the film runs a good long length and takes its time to establish the story, characters, the environment, and the conflict, before getting down and dirty with everything else.  The film entertains throughout; very few, if any scenes, dragged.  I personally found myself well-invested in the story.

And the story will be the thing worth seeing.  Those familiar with Suzanne Collins’ book will probably relate to the film best, as they can pick out all the fine details and understand every nuance the best.  The film does a first-rate job of adapting the original story; there are many minor changes, but most of it is just like the book.  Those unfamiliar with the book may be alienated from the film, though most of it can stand on its own.  Characters stand out pretty well; a romance does come about that seems reminiscent of “Twilight,” which will attract young audiences (especially the ladies) and could be off-putting for dudes wanting straightforward fighting.  Regardless, the film never comes off as sappy or pandering. 

My biggest complaint is in the filming; it looks great half of the time, but harsh, shakey, jittery cameramanship rears its ugly head throughout.  There are three or four times where I wish I could have seen more of what was going on, but couldn’t because of the photography.  Otherwise, parts of the film look great and stylish, and have fine editing.  I was pleased with the acting and writing; everybody put on a quality performance.  This production has some very fascinating sets, props, and costumes.  For special effects, I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse.  Music is pretty nice.

I’d recommend this best to fans of the book, and interested sci-fi fans.  Those seeking more hardcore material can do better.

4/5 (entertainment:  4/5, story:  4.5/5, film:  4/5)

Read More

A short break from the routine.

Regrettably, I haven’t been terribly active on this site.  I’ve surely been active in my day job, but after a while, the routine was starting to grate.  I had to take some time off on a vacation.  So, for just one week, I went to Seattle to visit relatives and see a few sights.  What sights I got to see weren’t too bad at all; it’s especially intriguing to see the Space Needle being painted orange to celebrate its 50th anniversary.  Orange…I can’t fathom how attractive it’d look, since I’ve grown accustomed to seeing it all in white.  As it is right now, I think it looks cool with a single orange stripe on it.  When it’s done, it may look like a giant scallop hanging over the city.

A shot of the Space Needle with a shot of orange in it.

The important thing about this little trip (aside from visiting family) was to break up the monotony.  It’s sometimes all too easy for one to fall into the trap of an everyday routine, always eating, sleeping, and doing the same things over and over until it rots the body and mind.  Upon coming back, I’ve resolved to try and keep myself active to some degree.  Even a simple change in routine or a simple task can keep the mind refreshed and active.  Otherwise, I fear that suffering from inactivity, or a standard routine, with a poor diet, could cause me problems later in life.

Fortunately, I’ve also found more time to write.  After nearly five years, “Ouroboros: Angel-Craft” is finally nearing its conclusion.  The draft is still quite a mess, and something about it still lacks the coherency that the book’s predecessor had.  But with some refinement, I think I’ll be happy with it, and can finally move on with the next projects in the series.

Now it’s back to work and back into the routine.  Only now, I might try and mix things up a bit here and there.

Read More