Movie Review Repost -- Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)

Avengers: Endgame isn't far away and so I think this might be a good time to take a look at my old review of the second film in the Avengers series: Age of Ultron, which according to the film's story turned out to be more of a Weekend of Ultron. Anyways, I still think the film is fine, maybe not 4.5/5 fine, but fine nonetheless. You can tell that this review was written just before I came down with a serious case of franchise fatigue with the MCU. Anyways, enjoy!

  Avengers assemble! And I mean really assembled; Age of Ultron's cast is huge, recalling all of The Avengers' cast as well as the addition of some new characters and even the supporting casts of other film series like Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. It made me realize, this is now a huge cinematic universe.

  “But not big enough for the two of us!” exclaims the film's main villain Ultron, an artificial intelligence inadvertently created by Tony Stark that uses robots to further his goal of eradicating all human life from Earth. What I particularly like about Age of Ultron is that we get to see more of how the Avengers characters interact. And it's not just a bunch of arguing like in the last film, they're actually hanging out and having fun. There's no Loki in this film, but we do get a look into Hawkeye's personal life, giving his character some sorely-needed insight. There's also a rather interesting romance, though it does make me scratch my head; I guess Betty Ross no longer exists in this universe? The new characters are pretty cool and they make the cinematic Avengers roster more closely resemble that of its familiar comic book counterpart. Just keep in mind that this Quicksilver is definitely not the same one from the X-Men universe.

  All actors do a fantastic job here, especially James Spader who voices Ultron. His performance gives the character an intelligent Frankenstein sort of quality to it with a bit of humour, of course.

While the first Avengers movie was full of great jokes and one-liners, this one goes for a somewhat more serious approach. Though it still has some great jokes – even a few adult jokes – Age of Ultron is less flashy and peppy than its predecessor. People are actually seen dying this time around.

But there were a few moments that left me dumbfounded. Like why did the Hulk just leave? If SHIELD is disbanded then where did that helicarrier come from? And no, I have no freakin' clue what the point was of that scene of Thor in the cave. (Also, the 3D was OK, but not necessary.)

  Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron is an excellent addition to the Marvel cinematic universe. While I still prefer the first one, this one was still a load of fun. And for those of you who wanted a large-scale superhero team film that feels less like a cartoon, this one may be for you.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Hey, guys. It's been a while since I've posted anything other than a current movie review. Sorry about that. You know, summer and all. I've begun work on a new article but it may take some time before it's finished. In the meantime let's look forward to the next Mission Impossible movie coming later this month, Mission Impossible: Fallout. Let's hope it continues the momentum set up by the previous one, Rogue Nation. Here's the review I wrote for that film back in 2015.

  Well, it's been about three and a half years since the last Mission Impossible film served us up a plate of good old, fun old action. The last one, Ghost Protocol, was amazing; I gave that one the full five stars. So does Rogue Nation accomplish its mission of measuring up? Let's find out.

  The story once again follows agent Ethan Hunt as he and the remaining members of the now-disbanded IMF attempt to uncloak and bring down the Syndicate, a mysterious terrorist organization. Like the other Mission Impossible films it has lots of globe trotting and double crossing that'll keep you guessing who's working for who until the very end.

  A lot of the fun of these films comes from the characters it follows. We've got the ageless Tom Cruise reprising his role as the fearless Ethan Hunt; Alec Baldwin, who sure has risen through the ranks of the CIA since Red October; Sean Penn as the lovably funny computer genius Benji; Jeremy Renner as the serviceable agent Brandt; Rebecca Ferguson as the kickass femme fatal Ilsa Faust who is kind of over-sexualized here (whether that's a good or bad thing, I'll let you decide) (edit: I've since decided that it's not that big a deal!); and Ving Rhames as the token black guy (seriously, did he actually do anything important?). And lastly, we have Sean Harris as the main villain Solomon Lane. The problem with him is that he's sometimes hard to take seriously, with his high-pitched whispery voice and his pouty angry face.

  The action is just as fun as ever, with some terrific stunts and action set pieces. But because of its PG rating, its violence feels a little too tame. There's even a freakin' knife fight scene that doesn't have a single drop of blood!

  Regardless, Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is a great action spectacle. I'd say it's not quite as good as Ghost Protocol was; that one had funnier jokes and a better villain. But this one is still a fine choice for any moviegoer.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Ant-Man (2015)

Hey, folks. Sorry I missed last week; it's been a very busy time for me. So Black Panther is out this week aaaaaaaaaaaand I'm not planning on seeing it. I'm getting pretty close to burnt out when it comes to Marvel superhero movies. There's so freakin' many of them and they're all so similar in structure (and increasingly the same in tone as of late) that they're all starting to blend together. Plus Black Panther is a character I've never been all that interested in. So for this week let's take a look back at another Marvel superhero film I reviewed back in 2015: Ant-Man. It's amusing to look back and see that even back then I was starting to grow weary of the super-flicks! Though I haven't seen this one since but I wouldn't mind watching it again.

  It's been, like, two months since I've seen a Marvel superhero movie! I need more, dangit! Not seeing them leaves me feeling... antsy. OK, to be serious I wasn't terribly concerned with going to see Ant-Man, at first. So how did Marvel Studios make this one any different from the other dozens of hero flicks they've made this century? Let's find out!

  The story follows Scott Lang, an ex-con who, after a run-in with Dr. Hank Pym, becomes involved in an industrial heist that could have global consequences. It's a fun ride that also has some clever tie-ins to the greater Marvel cinematic universe. The premise of men shrinking size leads to a few great action set pieces in some rather imaginative locations. In a welcome change from most of the other Marvel films, Ant-Man has an appropriately smaller scope and doesn't take itself quite as seriously. This leads to the film having a more comedic tone that works brilliantly.

  All around, the acting is great. Paul Rudd makes a very funny and likeable main character. Corey Stoll – who reminds me a lot of Telly Savalas – delivers a fine performance as the main villain, Darren Cross. We're also given a fun group of sidekick characters as well, which even includes Michael Peña.

  Lastly, Ant-Man is a good-looking movie as well. The dazzling special effects, the intuitive slow-motion, and (if you're lucky enough to get it) the radiant 3-D make this movie a real treat for the eyes.

  All in all, Ant-Man is a fun addition to the annals of Marvel filmdom thanks to it's lighthearted nature and humour. And since it's eponymous character isn't exactly known as the coolest of superheroes, this may be the best that can possibly be done with him.

Rating: four out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Sorry, guys. Once again I've got nothing new. But please understand that I've not been lazy; I'm currently working on a bunch of new stuff for this blog (including some stuff for a new topic I've not yet covered on Anachronarchy before) and hopefully it will be ready for next Saturday. For now I guess it's time for another movie review repost, this time of 2015's Mad Max: Fury Road. This was a fun movie to watch, and while I haven't seen it since, I certainly wouldn't mind seeing again. Enjoy.

   I have to confess, I was probably the only person on the world who didn't know what Mad Max: Fury Road was going to be like. Upon viewing the trailer it looked to me like happy hour in the Australian Outback. As it turns out, that's this movie in a nutshell. And it delivers what it promises.

   Mad Max is a crazy, over-the-top adventure that exists in a deranged heavy metal fantasy world. One could easily imagine Motörhead or Judas Priest coming from that guitar-playing dude. Yeah, one of the cars is loaded with tons of amps and has a guitarist strapped to it. And that's just one example; there's lots of bizarre characters and outlandish but still cool-looking cars. I guess I should talk about the plot. It takes place in a post apocalyptic world where water and gas are sought-after goods and where most of the population is crazy with radiation poisoning (I guess). Max and Imperator Furiosa team up to try to escape the clutches of the evil cult leader Immortan Joe. This is a film that is relatively light on plot and dialogue, but heavy in the action department. When people tell you that Mad Max is one long action scene, they're not far from the truth.

   The film showcases some great acting across the board. Tom Hardy is great as the level-headed, yet tormented title character who is primarily concerned with his own survival. But Charlize Theron steals the show as the grim, determined Furiosa, who is arguably the film's real main character. She doesn't speak much more than Max, but remains just as compelling.

   Mad Max should also be commended for its outstanding cinematography. Every shot looks great, and you can easily tell what's going on. I've heard that this movie used a lot of practical effects and stunts, but with such highly developed CG thrown in as well it's hard to find the seams. In either case, the effects look amazing, even in 3-D.

   Despite its very few plotholes – like why did Joe leave the citadel unguarded? And where was Max going at the end? – Mad Max: Fury Road is an outstanding movie. Everything you've heard about it is true (except for the claims that this is a feminist film; I wouldn't go that far). And that's about all there is to say. It's a good movie and you oughtta watch it.

Rating: five stars out of five!

Retrospective Movie Review -- Room (2015)

   It's been a while since I've done a retrospective movie review, but after seeing 2015's Room I just had to. You guys remember this one right? That touching drama film about a boy and his mom who escape from their creepy captor and his single windowless room to discover the beauty of the outside world? It was nominated for tons of awards and received huge amounts of praise so I decided to check it out for myself.

   And I got to admit, I didn't really get it at first. I had to watch it three times in a row before I finally understood it, which is something I've never done before... the 3 times in a row part, I mean; I've understood movies before. Shut up! I'm a reviewer; what kind of fool do you take me for?! So let's get into it.

   After some opening credits showing the decrepit, uninviting city in which Room takes place, the film introduces us right off the bat to the dastardly captor paying a visit to his captive, the mother. Moments later the boy – who for some reason doesn't look that much younger than his mom – then enters the room. That really threw me for a loop the first time I saw this – I mean, it looks as if he's already escaped Room – but upon repeat viewings I've learned that the title is loosely applied to include the whole apartment building in which Room is located. We don't see the boy nor the mother leave the apartment building, so their “prison” is in fact a bit larger than the film's marketing led us to believe.

   Anyways, the mother at first appears to be happily in love with her captor but as soon as he's out of the picture she expresses her disdain with being forced to live with him and make love to him against her will. We learn that the only reason she pretends to love him is to avoid provoking his violent side, which most other people don't seem to believe exists. She tries, to little avail, to confide in the mishmash of similarly screwed up miscreants who occupy the same wretched apartment complex where strangers freely barge into any room they please and drug dealers run amok. This includes a crazy, middle-aged bag lady who likes to have the exact same 1-minute conversations over and over again. This woman loves to pretend she's our heroine's mother (although she shows nothing but antipathy for the boy) and to tell insane stories that she made up in her head such as the time her brother stole her inherited house or the time she found out that she definitely has breast cancer (which I highly doubt since she never brings it up again). Ultimately, bag lady is unsympathetic to the mother's pleas for help because from her warped point of view the standard of living afforded by the mother's captivity is good enough.

   Similarly, the mother reaches out to Mark, another neighbour, the captor's sleazy, back-stabbing best friend. She starts up an affair with him in an attempt to win him over to her side and set her and her son free. Although they bump uglies multiple times, Mark is reluctant to help her because he too fears how violently angry the captor might be.

   Yes, this captor may seem like an easygoing (albeit strange) man, but upon closer inspection he's really a psychotic ex-convict. He lives in a world of hallucinatory fantasies in which everybody likes him. For example, he's convinced himself that the woman he's kidnapped is his fiance and that the boy is his close friend/adopted son, I think (who freakin' knows?). The captor is a very controlling person. He confronts the mother when he hears her telling others about his physical abuse and tells her to either deny their occurrences or just to forget about them. He also has a tape recorder rigged up and ready to go so that he can record phone calls when he's feeling suspicious of the people around him.

   As one might expect, being born and growing up in such an inhospitable place has not done wonders for the boy's mental development. Just like his biological father, the boy has his own personal fantasies. In his case he believes that he is headed for university and at some point he stopped believing that his mother is indeed his mother and he develops romantic feelings for her. Eww. Even the captor is disturbed by this development, and in a brief moment of relatable decency he has a heartfelt talk with the boy and puts a stop to potential incest. It seems that even the scumbag captor is not without morals. That's what we in the bizz call a complex, three-dimensional character.

   It seems the only ray of hope comes in the form of Peter, the captor's friend and former psychiatrist from prison. Peter tries helping the captor with his problems but unfortunately he believes that the mother is just another figment of the captor's imagination. Peter later suggests that Mark also lives in a deluded fantasy world involving the mother fantasy, prompting a violent outburst. This scares Peter away permanently before he's able to discover that the captor's whole mother fantasy is actually real.

   Much of the film is focused on the whole “love” triangle between the captor, the mother, and Mark, with Mark having trouble deciding whether to free the mother and son or remain loyal to his weirdo best friend. This comes to a head during a failed-intervention-turned-surprise-birthday-party (the mother mistakenly planned it on the captor's birthday, so all the sleazebag neighbours she invited just assumed it was a b-day party). Here the mother flaunts her affair with Mark right in front of the captor. This makes the captor very angry and a savage fistfight with Mark ensues, effectively destroying their fragile friendship (but more importantly, ruining the party). Once everyone has left, the captor confronts the mother about her “infidelity”. Finally dropping the act she's kept up for so many years, the mother harshly tells him off and storms away. After seeing his last fantasy shattered before his eyes and unable to accept the way life really is, the captor has lost his reason to live. This makes him rampage through his apartment, destroy all his things, and then shoot himself dead.

   You'd think that this would be a happy ending since he was the bad guy, right? But no, the movie treats this like it was a sad event! Mark, the mother, and the son all discover the captor's lifeless body (at the same time, conveniently) and mourn for him. And that right there is the great twist ending of Room: everybody really did love him all along because they were in an advanced state of Stockholm syndrome! I never saw it coming... mostly because it makes no sense whatsoever!

   What is with this film? Room was absolutely nothing like what I thought it was going to be. It wasn't tense or harrowing enough to do the whole captivity-survival thing justice. The ending wasn't nearly as uplifting as it was supposed to be. Hell, the mom and son never even end up escaping! Apart from that, the film's production quality is so half-baked you'd think it was filmed in Turkey in the 1980's. The sets look cheap, the dialogue is very awkward, the acting is amateurish, and the frequent dubbing couldn't have been more obvious. And yet the film got nominated for 4 Academy Awards including best picture and director, with a win for best lead actress. What in the name of tarnation happened?! I'll tell you: Hollywood got drunk. The critics are all wrong about this one. 2015's Room is one of the most dishonest and dumbest movies I've ever seen.

Grade: ZERO STARS!!!

P.S. -- Who is Tommy Wiseau?

Movie Review Repost - American Sniper (2015)

Hey, people. I'm still in the middle of packing/moving this week, still pretty busy. I want you to know that I've started work on some new articles for Anachronarchy, but it may be a week or two before they're ready for posting. Thank you for being so patient. In the meantime, since I just saw a Clint Eastwood movie earlier this week (Sully) I thought it'd be appropriate to repost the review I did of his previous film, American Sniper. Enjoy.

   War is hell, and while American Sniper may not be quite as grim or depressing as Fury was last year, its portrayal of extraordinary violence upon individuals is just as devastating and perhaps even more relevant.

   American Sniper is based on the autobiography of Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle, a Navy SEALs marksman who served four tours of combat in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. The plot swings back and forth between Kyle's time overseas, filled with intense action, and his home leaves in Texas where he struggles to reconcile his sense of duty with his family life. In both situations he is faced with heartbreaking dilemmas. This is a film that is neither pro-war nor anti-war; it doesn't take sides in the debates surrounding the Iraq War's conduct. It simply tries to portray it's effects on the lives of the individuals involved. And in this regard, Bradley Cooper does a fantastic job playing the stressed-out main character. Really the only bit of story that could've been improved upon was the final scene, which felt a little clumsy and rushed.

   In the director's chair we have the venerable Clint Eastwood who definitely knows how to make a war film – Letters from Iwo Jima, anyone? From the steady mix of action, drama, and personal struggle it's clear that he has huge respect for veterans and what they've chosen to put themselves through. This is especially evident in the end credits which, after a brief slideshow, are completely silent.

   The production is breath-taking. The sets, the locations, the props, the costumes, the equipment; it all looks amazing. The cinematography is dazzling, giving us some nice-looking longshots (no pun intended). So too is the special effects, especially on the sandstorm towards the end.

   Now with a film that has the word “American” in the title you have to expect a bit of over-the-top foreign patriotism. There's also a couple scenes that I just don't get. What was the point of the crying baby in the nursery scene? Are soldiers really allowed to chat up their girlfriends over the phone in the middle of a mission? Do SEALs ever get orders or are they just allowed to leave their posts and go do whatever they want during missions?

   Regardless, American Sniper is an excellent film on modern warfare. In comparison, it's more poignant than Lone Survivor, but with better action than Green Zone. Overall, it's roughly comparable to the Hurt Locker, but sadder. If you're interested in the personal/psychological consequences of military service, and if you can stomach a bit of violence, then American Sniper is the flick for you. Even if there are no 360 no-scopes in it.

Rating: four-and-a-half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost - Project Almanac (2015)

At this time of year, you see a lot of "best/worst movies of 2015" lists. I've always wanted to do one of those, but the problem is that I haven't seen nearly enough movies in one year to do that type of thing. In fact, I didn't see all that many bad movies last year anyways. But for those who are interested, I've decided to repost here my review for the worst movie I saw in 2015: Project Almanac. It wasn't horrible, but looking back I think I was being way too generous with this one. Even if you had heard of it, you've probably already forgotten about it! In which case, enjoy this sad little reminder, and then go watch The Revenant again. Enjoy!

   Going in, I had no clue what this movie was about. All I knew about Project Almanac was that it was in found-footage style, and since I don't much care for those kinds of films my expectations were rather low. Was I right?

   Not really, somewhat, I guess. I will say that the film was slightly better than I expected. Project Almanac follows David and his friends as they stumble upon David's late dad's unfinished prototype of a time machine. Unlike most time travel movies, it focuses less on the possibilities of temporal displacement and more on the ethics involved in it and how it affects its participants' relationships. And so for this reason it makes sense that our characters are more than a little careless, self-centred, and irresponsible. Anyways, the film presents some interesting ideas concerning time travel, such as what happens when you go back and meet your past self, as well as how a time traveller's psyche is affected by having the power to go back to see and do anything. Unfortunately this story's adverse consequences (ripple effects) could have benefited from a clearer explanation. Also the ending was quite sloppy, with a bunch of unanswered questions.

   The actor portraying David – Jonny Weston – does a pretty good job, even if he does look way too old to be in high school. The rest of the cast is just OK, nothing special.

   Now let's talk about the whole found-footage schtick for a minute. For a film dealing with experimentation in time travel told from one point of view, it seemed like a good idea but it could've been handled better. Project Almanac suffers from consistency problems that are symptomatic of a lot of FF style films (i.e. it breaks the FF rules). Which camera are we supposed to believe filmed the whole movie? Was it the GoPro, the camera phone, or the old-school camcorder? Or was it a combination of all three? Either way, that camera has an impressive microphone range! And of course the film also has those super-serious scenes that no one in the right mind would ever be filming in real life. And lastly, the whole found-footage tone is kind of ruined when the movie includes cutaway shots to other locations, ominous zoom-ins, private moments where it's obviously just one person alone, and – worst of all – musical scoring!

   Despite this, Project Almanac is watchable enough. There's not much else to say really. If you want to watch it, watch it. If you don't, then don't.

Rating: two-and-a-half stars out of five.

Movie Review - Straight Outta Compton

So here I'm reposting my most recent film review (originally from Facebook), which just so happens to be the 50th film review I've ever written. Yeah, I know Straight Outta Compton came out two months ago (at least that's when it arrived at my town). Please excuse the lateness, as I've been pretty swamped with school work and thus haven't had a whole lot of time for movies since. Enjoy!

That's right fellas, I'm pleased to announce that this is my 50^th movie review! I'd like to thank all of you guys for helping make it this far in four years. Thanks for reading, supporting, and not blocking me out from your newsfeed! So let's celebrate with a review of Straight Outta Compton.

Straight Outta Compton is a musical biopic about the late-80's-to-early-90's pioneering gagsta rap group N.W.A. It follows the group from their inception all the way to Eazy-E's death (spoiler alert!). While it does cover a lot of ground and contains a multitude of subplots (hence the two and a half hour length), the main focus is that of the members' relationships, mainly between Eazy-E, Ice Cube, and Dr. Dre. And despite (or possibly because of) having the latter two rappers as producers, this film is a surprisingly raw and honest telling of history, displaying all the nastiest little details. Right away the movie grabs your attention and establishes a dreary mood with a scene depicting one of the main characters getting involved in a drug bust. At times the plot seems a bit formulaic, but it's never uninteresting. It just slows down a bit halfway through once the group splits up; that's when all the subplots begin splintering out.

By far the best part of this movie is its acting. Our three leads – O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Ice Cube (i.e. his dad), Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E, and Corey Hawkins as Dr. Dre – all do an amazing job in addition to being great lookalikes. I was especially impressed by their ability to convincingly rap all the classic N.W.A. songs. During their performance scenes it is easy to forget that these guys aren't the real thing. Paul Giamatti also does a good portrayal of the group's manager Jerry Heller.

Overall, Straight Outta Compton is more or less what you'd expect. Imagine a daytime soap opera that had lots of violence, profanity, and nudity, but wasn't lame or corny and had brilliant acting, and you've got an entertaining biopic that even non-hip hop fans will be able to appreciate. And is it any surprise that the soundtrack kicks ass?

Rating: three and a half out of five.