Review: Pacific Rim

Let's get this out of the way: I hate Anime.  I've tried on multiple occasions to appreciate the art form, but just can't get into it.  And if you watch the trailer for Pacific Rim, it's likely that you will compare it to Anime, because that's essentially what it is.

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for this film, it was recommended by some REALLY respectable folks in the critical and even directorial community (Rian Johnson, one of the biggest up-and-comer directors, tweeted that he saw it twice on opening day).  As a result, I gave it a shot.  And as a result of me giving it a shot, you get to read this review of Pacific Rim and make an informed decision of whether to see it.

THE GOOD
First, let's start with the special effects and Computer Generated Imaging (CGI).  The special effects were out of this world.  The monsters were so well crafted and so scary that I didn't once question their veracity.  I think that this is where most of the $200 million budget went to.  The robots, or Jaegers if you prefer, were so beautiful and awesome to behold.  I couldn't get over how cool they looked and how realistic they were.

If you want some summer popcorn action, Pacific Rim delivers it in droves.  I cannot stress how enjoyable the fight scenes are to watch.  Imagine a 13 year old boy's dreams, and this is how it is.  They are executed flawlessly, with the correct amount of tension in the right spots, as well as exhilarating payoffs.

The actual story and premise of the movie is actually quite interesting and is setup very well in the opening exposition/montage.  The movie is also remarkably well paced, never lulling, yet also not non-stop to the point of exhaustion.  Guillermo Del Toro (the director) knows how to craft a good story and make an enjoyable film.

Although I didn't dig the color palette, it did make for some refreshingly unique visuals.  The camera work was good too.

THE BAD
I wasn't a big fan of the soundtrack.  It sounded like it came from (GASP) an Anime cartoon.

Where this movie really didn't work for me was the cartoonish characters.  Like everything in this film, it felt like they drew on Anime for their inspiration, and those types of characters just don't speak to me.  This made the middle third of the movie a bit hard to watch.  Even Idris Elba (possibly one of my favorite actors in the world right now, and if you haven't watched Luther on BBC do it now) didn't do it for me.  I blame the script and directing, not necessarily the actors. Also, there is a Chinese girl in the movie that I really couldn't like.  I tried, but her acting was just too terrible.

CONCLUSION
Overall, I enjoyed this film.  It's probably one that should be seen in the theater too, because those action scenes are just incredible.  3.5/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is hardly any human blood or gore in this film, but the giant monsters take quite a brutal and graphic beating.  No sex, not a lot of swearing.  I really recommend that anyone under 13 not see this movie.

Review: The Lone Ranger

I promised myself that I wouldn't watch this movie, mostly because I felt that I had a pretty good idea of how awful it was going to be.  Gore Verbinski, the director, has a really bad track record with me.  His only coherent film is the first Pirates of the Carribean film, while the others are just awful and unwatchable.  He actually started off directing Budweiser 'frog' commercials, and then got his break with Dreamworks with a film called Mouse Hunt.  Suffice it to say, I think he gets one more strike with Disney, and then he's out (not including this film).

REVIEW
The movie starts out quite compelling, with Johnny Depp stealing the screen and a really good musical score.  However, it goes WAY downhill after that. 

Everyone did adequate acting, but the characters that they were given to portray were ridiculous.  Armie Hammer's Lone Ranger is not a hero in any sense, unless you believe that a hero should be a blabbering moron.  His ideals are high, but then he 'must' break them and therefore becomes a 'hero' because of his lack of trust in any institution.

Johnny Depp's Tonto was equally adequate, but not nearly as interesting as his other characters.  Many will tell you that this Tonto is nothing more than an American-Indian Captain Jack.  I highly disagree.  Jack Sparrow was way more interesting and likeable.

There were a lot of great actors in this, but they were all wasted!  Helena Bonam Carter barely had 4 minutes of screen time!  William Fitchner did the best job of all, but not enough to save the movie.

The film had an identity crisis: it didn't know if it wanted to be a comedy, a drama, an action flick, or a horror film.  It switched its tone between these more than any live action movie I've ever seen.  It was horribly uneven, and by the end I really wanted to leave the theater.  It was that awful of an experience for me!

The main message I got from the film is "Don't trust any institution."  It openly paints corporations and government alike as greedy to the point of being willing to kill for it.  I'm no pro-government enthusiast, but the heavy-handedness with which this was doled out was quite despicable and unbecoming of Disney.  There is a native american massacre at the hands of both institutions in this film.

The PG-13 rating is way too low.  There is a scene of canibalism that should have pushed this over the top to R.  A lot of folks feel that Disney must have pulled some strings to get it passed as PG-13, and I tend to agree with them.

CONCLUSION
The Lone Ranger is easily the worst film I have seen all year and one of the weirdest films I've ever seen.  It wasn't very funny or very pleasing to look at, though it tried very hard to do both.  1/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This is one of the hardest PG-13 films I've ever seen.  It should be R and the MPAA should be ashamed of themselves.  No children under 16 should see this movie.

Review: Under the Dome (Pilot)

It is a strange time to be a television viewer.  It used to be the norm to accept bad acting and silly lines in order to appreciate most television shows.  Shows like The West Wing and Law & Order stood out like diamonds among the rough, while shows like Smallville caused us to suspend our better tastes in order to stomach it.  Then, cable networks like AMC, FX, and USA started to offer up shows like Mad Men, The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Justified, and Suits, forever altering the way I personally view television. I no longer accept mediocrity when watching TV shows.  I realize that this is a high bar to hold something like Under the Dome to, but unfortunately that's the reality.

SYNOPSIS
Based on Stephen King's novel, an invisible force field descends upon a small town in the northeastern part of the United States.

REVIEW
First of all, the premise is quite interesting.  It's a mix of character drama, suspense, survival, and a pinch of apocalypse.  The underlying mysteries of why the dome is there and what's behind these folks' facades are actually quite compelling.  Unfortunately, with Stephen King behind it, it's going to end up in a very dark place, which is admittedly not my thing.  It reminds me of Lost in many ways, although nowhere near as well executed (Lost's Showrunners Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse openly admit that King's The Stand was the show's primary inspiration).

The opening shot sequence was really effective.  However, there wasn't much more of the effective camera work throughout the episode that we saw in the beginning.  I guess i shouldn't expect amazing camera work on a TV show, but I was teased with the opening and then it didn't pan out (figuratively or literally).

The acting was okay, but Brian K. Vaughn (the writer) is NOT a character-driven writer, at least as far as I can tell.  Some of the acting was good, but most of simply acceptable.  I feel almost nothing for these characters after the first episode, so I'm actually not inclined to continue watching.

The special effects were really good.  They are better than the ones on Once Upon a Time, which is the other effects-driven network show that it's comparable to.  There is a scene where a truck hits the dome head on and I have to say it was one of the coolest car crashes I've ever seen.  Kudos to them.

The sex and violence in here are not effective and seem to be for the risque value instead of actually adding to the story.  I openly chuckled at some of the silly gore that they felt compelled to include.

CONCLUSION
I guess it's a decent summer show.  I'm not sure if they're planning on it being a mini-series or continue on if the ratings are good.  But, I don't think I will continue to watch.

2.5/5 Disco Balls. 

PARENTS GUIDE
This is a pretty hard TV-14.  They put everything in there that they are allowed to.  There is a fairly graphic sex scene and some gross gore.  Not recommended for children.

Review: Monsters University

Pixar has had a rough go the last few years.  Brave and Cars 2 were lackluster (sorry Zach, but I think Wreck-it Ralph was robbed by mediocrity at last year's Oscars).  It seems that the Brain Trust has been brain-dead since Toy Story 3, which had me slightly worried about Monsters University.  The first film is a masterpiece in animation and story but it was certainly plausible that they could mess it up.  I needn't have worried: University is easily their best fare since Toy Story 3 and lives up to Pixar's gold standard of storytelling.

SYNOPSIS
A look at the relationship between Mike and Sulley during their days at Monsters University -- when they weren't necessarily the best of friends.

THE GOOD
First of all, as with all Pixar productions, the animation is beyond beautiful.  The colors are vibrant and it looks so real.  It was 'drawn' better than The Croods, which was the best animated feature from Dreamworks EVER.  Also, the short before it, entitled The Blue Umbrella, is the most beautifully animated piece to come out of ANY animation studio.

The voice acting is really good for the most part.  It was fun to hear Alfred Molina (Doc Ock from Spider-man 2) and Nathan Fillion (Castle) as supporting characters.  Billy Crystal really outdid himself in this one.  He provides more depth than his previous performance.

The film is remarkably funny and has an amazing sense of timing.  The jokes hit just right and the originality and creativity were in full swing.  It's a return to the cleverness that audiences have come to expect from the animation and storytelling giant.

What makes University so great is its characters.  Most of the new additions are refreshingly unconventional and original.  I just couldn't get enough of the main support cast.

Another amazing aspect of this movie are its stark moral messages.  They are strong and to the point, which makes me want to recommend it to parents and children alike.  I won't go into what these messages are in order to avoid spoilers, but suffice it to say that this is a refreshingly moral film.  It's easy to compare it to other college-themed films, which deploy cheap sex-themed humor to get its laughs.  It SHOULD be compared to such films to show that humor of such a base nature isn't required to make a great film.  In fact, that base humor can easily detract from the heart of a story.

THE BAD
The only bad things are John Goodman's simplistic performance and the formulaic nature of the first half of the story.  John Goodman plays a 'Rad, dude!' type character that is a little too undeveloped until the end.

The first little bit is REALLY formulaic but, luckily it redeems itself at the end.

CONCLUSION
This movie works so well, to the point that it's my favorite movie of the year so far.  It is so fun and has gobs of heart.  I wouldn't put it above Wreck-it Ralph, but i would say it's a solid entry into the Pixar canon.  I recommend this to everyone except Nate Cooley, who will somehow find a way to not like it.  4.75/5 stars.

PARENTS GUIDE
Although this movie is rated G, it should be PG.  I don't know what the MPAA was thinking.  The scary parts are scary enough that a sensitive 4-year-old (like the one that I have) would not fare well.

Review: Man of Steel

Superman: The Movie is my first love.  I was exposed to a lot of great movies as a child, but before Star Wars or Condorman, my little heart was smitten with Superman.  I recently got the movie on Blu-ray, and it has aged well.  It was an emotionally-driven story with remarkably well-defined characters.  There is a sense of magic and awe in seeing Clark become Superman and seeing the world react to him.  It was the first superhero movie, and the only one that was watchable for more than 25 years (or until the release of Bryan Singer's X-Men). 

This sense of awe and innocence is what I expect from a Superman movie and was greatly disappointed in 2006's Superman Returns.  In my last review I spoke of why I think that Superman Returns is a pale imitation of our hero.  My main question going into Superman's latest cinematic excursion, Man of Steel, was, 'Could this new movie keep that awe and innocence whilst delving into the grittiness that Christopher Nolan was known for?'  I am pleased to say that it did! 

THE GOOD

Henry Cavill, although a Brit, is an excellent Superman.  Better than Brandon Routh (Superman Returns), Dean Cain (Lois & Clark), and Tom Welling (Smallville) combined.  He is able to embody the type of hero that sincerely wants to do good in a world that is fighting against that good.  At first I was really nervous about him as Clark Kent, but he did such a brilliant job.  In all seriousness, his performance is on par with Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man with the way he just owned the role.

Kevin Costner (Jonathon Kent) and Diane Lane (Martha Kent) were easily the next best actors in the movie.  I was scared that Costner would give a crappy performance, but he did the opposite: he and Diane Lane really drive the emotional core of this story and I honestly don't think the movie would have worked without them.

Although Hans Zimmer's score is very repetative and doesn't necessarily work as a stand-alone piece of art, it is PERFECT for this movie.  It really struck the right notes (figuratively AND literally) for the tone of what they were portray with the emotions.

As with most of Zach Snyder's movies, it is beautiful to look at.  The color palate fits perfectly and a great experience to look at.  I will need to see it again in order to gauge the quality of the cinematography against some of his other movies (i.e. Watchmen, 300).  I was enthralled with the story that I didn't get a chance to notice, which is how a good movie should be.

THE BAD AND NEUTRAL 
Amy Adams did a decent job, but I wasn't really convinced that she was the Lois Lane of lore.  I suppose that they were trying to make this Lois different from other Lois's, but they really changed the character to the point of making her unrecognizable.  Although, it should be stated for the record that out of all characters in the Superman universe to cast/play, Lois is without a doubt the hardest.  I feel like Erica Durance (Smallville) was the only one that really worked for me.

This is a personal preference, but I really hate it when most people speak with a British accent in a place (i.e. Krypton) except for one person.  Michael Shannon was a fantastic Zod, but everyone around him had a British accent, whist he kept his Midwestern enunciation!  It felt inconsistent and almost ruined the Krypton-based scenes. ALMOST. 

Critics are being really hard on this movie, mostly because of the more or less mindless action in the middle of the movie.  I'll admit, I tend to agree with them on this: the action was not as good as it could have been (especially when compared to something like the The Dark Knight) and felt mind-numbing more often than not.  However, the person I brought with me to the screening had the opposite opinion of me in that enjoyed the action way more than the emotional core. I think that Mr. Snyder is trying to play it both ways:  he tried to make a good emotional story while keeping the potential for high international box-office present.  Also, I think another reason might have been that the studio wanted more action because the lack therefore was the most common complaint for Superman Returns.

CONCLUSION
Man of Steel is an emotionally-driven story with some popcorn action in the middle to please the public.  The emotional core of this film overrides the mind-numbing action.  However, I think that the general public won't mind the action in the same way that I did.  I can't recommend this movie enough.  It is better than Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3 and I have hard time believing that any other movie (except for Monsters University) will be able to beat it in my mind.  4/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
This film is emotionally heavy, and should not be viewed by young children or even some adolescents.  It is very violent, although not distastefully so. There is no sex, and not much language at all. 

Why the world doesn't need Superman Returns: A Retrospective Review

With the release of what is considered to be the most anticipated movie of the summer/year, Man of Steel, there has been a lot of buzz defending Superman's last cinematic endeavor, Superman Returns. Folks are defending it both as a movie and its box office record.  While I can't speak with much authority about whether or not it was a flop, I can state with some authority as to why it belongs near the bottom of the superhero movie heap.

Bryan Singer came onto the scene, at least for me, with what I consider to be the advent of the modern comic book movie in X-Men (2000).  It brought a visceral realism (AKA verisimilitude) to a fictional modern universe, which is something that had never successfully been done before.  Then, with X2 he brought it to a whole other level, making the characters even more complex and likable while moving the audience through an entirely relevant story.  So, when Jon Peters (the producer who had been charged with producing the next Superman film) got together with Singer, it seemed like a match made in heaven.  Could Bryan Singer bring that same realism to a Superman movie?  Yes and no.

First of all, Superman Returns is a beautifully made film.  The cinemtography is top-quality.  The editing and pacing are just phenomenal.  The effects were the best of its time, and still stand up nicely today.  Singer's ability to utilize the camera in order to move the story along is just fantastic.

The acting is quite good as well.  Brandon Routh does a fantastic job embodying Singer's interpretation of Superman.  Kevin Spacey is a remarkably better Lex Luthor than his predecessor, Gene Hackman.  Every time I watch it, I wish that George Lucas would have cast this little kid as Anikan.  I could go on and on.

The music is really great too!  Easily Jon Ottman's best score to date (it doesn't hurt that he was encouraged to use John Williams' iconic themes).

You are probably wondering why, with all this praise, I can possibly find it to be a dismal disaster.  The heart of the matter is that by Singer bringing his verisimilitude to this project, he changed Superman's character to the point that he was no longer Superman.

Superman stands for many things, but encouraging infidelity is not one of them.  It's pathetic to think that Superman would even consider breaking up an engaged couple (and one that has supposedly produced a child, no less!) because he is in love.  I know this sounds cliche, but Superman is the ideal gentleman.  Recently Charlise Theron starred in a film where her character is a home wrecker and is rightly vilified for such behavior.  How is it that we are supposed to see Superman differently or hold him to a different standard?  Don't even get me started on Superman as a peeping Tom!

The creation of Superman has been classified as the creation of American mythology, and I certainly agree with that.  He is the ideal that we all strive for: a powerful man, both morally and physically, who uses that power for good.  Superman represents the best in us.  The type of story that Singer, et al. try to tell is a good story; it's just not good Superman story.

A Note on Box Office
People are bringing up that this film made almost as much as Batman Begins, and therefore should have deserved a sequel in the same way.  Well, I think that Warner Bros. decided (smartly, IMO) to go a different direction because of the negative reaction to the movie by the paying public, and not the critical community.  Fans and critics alike praised Begins, while this film received a lot more of a mixed reaction from both.  There is no way that the hype would be as strong for a sequel to Superman Returns as it was for The Dark Knight.

Review: The Internship

I'm not sure I would have thought that Google would ever be the type to buy and pay for a film in the same way that Lifelock did for Identity Thief.  Nor would I have guessed that Vince Vaughn would ever be one to sell out by making a more or less sequel to Wedding Crashers that doubles as a commercial for Google.  But, that appears to be exactly what The Internship is.

While I did find much of Wedding Crashers funny, I also found much of the humor to be too cude (I dislike crude humor because I find it offensive and I think it's the easy way out to get laughs, requiring no creativity).  So, my expectations were a bit mixed, and were actually quite low because of the REALLY bad press it has received from the critical community.  However, I was pleasantly surprised. 

THE GOOD

Vince Vaughn is one of the more charismatic comedic actors currently working in Hollywood.  His charm alone can carry a movie quite easily.  He is so likable and funny in this film.  The salesman character he embodies is the type of person you want to be inspired by.  

The film is quite funny when it works, which fortunately is the majority of the time.  Vaughn and Wilson have such a good sense of timing and director Shawn Levy knows how to utilize that.

The supporting cast is quite good and actually remarkably realistic.  As a software engineer, I can safely say that I know individuals that fit each of the personality types that they decided to showcase.  They may have augmented the personalities for comedic effect, but make no mistake: those are realistic nerds through and through.

THE BAD
The product placement got out of hand and I found myself rolling my eyes at some of the more ridiculous attempts.  Also, the jargon that they used tried to be realistic, and while they used the right words, the context was completely off.  The shining example of how to do geek culture and dialogue right is Big Bang Theory.  Everything they do in there is spot on.

Owen Wilson's character, while fun and charismatic, felt more shallow than almost any other performance I've seen him in.  It felt like he phoned it in, or wasn't given proper directing.  On a side note, iff you want the best performance that Owen Wilson can give, watch Midnight in Paris, which is a delightfully perfect film in every way.

CONCLUSION
I laughed pretty hard at this movie and had a great time.  Everyone else in the theater seem to as well.  If most folks go in with a grain of salt with regards to the 'Googliness' of the picture and I think they will enjoy it too. 3.25/5 Disco Balls.

PARENTS GUIDE
There is no nudity, but the sex references are plentiful to the point of me questioning the PG-13 rating.  Also there is a big scene that takes place in a strip joint. There is a lot of language, including an f bomb.