Movie Review Repost -- 22 Jump Street (2014)

You see? I don't always review action movies, I talk about other genres too. Here's a review I did for a comedy back in 2014 called 22 Jump Street. I liked it a lot, and while I still haven't seen 21 Jump Street, 22 Jump Street is a fun little romp I've been back to several times. So enjoy as we take a trip down memory lane. (P.S. -- Please don't think that I've been lazy. I've just completed two articles that'll be up in September. I'll see you then.)

  Hey guys, I hope you enjoy this super-late review of 22 Jump Street. Just for the record, I was planning on seeing The Purge: Anarchy, but it was sold out and so it was either this or Tammy. I think I made the right choice.

  This film's plot is a lot like the first one's: so much so that several jokes are made about it. Two years after the first Jump Street program, officers Schmidt and Jenko are on the streets going after drug dealers. Their efforts are not very successful, thus they are reassigned to Jump Street (whose headquarters have moved to the building across the street) to pose as undercover college students. It's a great plot, providing lots of scenarios for varied jokes. Also, the question of who is the dealer is a decent mystery, but its payoff is rather underwhelming.

  As expected, 22 Jump Street's central focus is on the bromance between Jenko and Schmidt. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have excellent chemistry. They are hilarious and the troubles they go through are epic. Ice Cube – playing the comedically short-tempered Captain Dickson – steals every scene he's in. He has a couple of especially good freakouts. Admittedly, the villains aren't all that memorable, but that's not that much of a problem; Hill and Tatum are more than enough to keep you entertained.

  The jokes in this film are rowdy, goofy, and nonstop. Although some of them aren't exactly new – the whole character giving commentary on his own predicament in the middle of an action scene – they're still just as funny as ever. 22 Jump Street even makes fun of itself with a ton of self-referential jokes.

  I've only seen bits and pieces of 21 Jump Street, so I can't say if this one is any better or worse. But what I can say is that 22 Jump Street is a load of self-aware, side-splitting fun. If you like modern comedies, than go watch this film you'll enjoy it for sure.

Rating: four stars out of five.

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 -- Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Here's another old review that I'm surprised that I haven't shared on Arnold's Benediction yet: Amazing Spider-Man 2. It's been a long time since I last watched this hot mess, but my thoughts on it are basically unchanged. It's a mediocre movie that could have been good but tried to bite off way more than it could chew and got way too greedy in terms of sequel-baiting possibly due to studio meddling. It took this Marc Webb spidey series two films to run into the same dead end that the original Sam Raimi series achieved in three. Does that count as progress or degradation? You decide!

  Aaaaaaaargh! They f***ed it up! Being a big fan of Spider-Man, I really wanted this movie to be good. But alas, it isn't. Let's take a look at it. I'll try to avoid spoilers as much as I can.

  After a brief sequence showing how the Parkers died, Amazing Spider-Man 2 begins with Peter and Gwen's high school graduation as the two contemplate whether their relationship should continue. Meanwhile, Harry Osborn, Gwen's boss and a childhood friend of Peter's, learns that he's inherited a few things form his now dead father, both good and bad (mostly bad). Then in subplot number sixty-one, a timid Spidey-obsessed OsCorp employee named Max Dillon suffers a terrible accident that turns him into Electro. So yeah, there's quite a few plotlines in this film, but it doesn't really feel like too much until the film's second half when scenes start jumping around really quickly. It makes the story more meandering and difficult to get into. There's also one or two conversation scenes that go on for a bit too long, particularly the romance scenes between Peter and Gwen because you already know how that's going to turn out (though the two still have good chemistry). There's also a bunch of stuff that happens for no reason: Harry's recovery towards the end, Peter suddenly becoming obsessed with his parents, Peter being OK by the film's end, and the entire Rhino story, which is brief, unexplained, nonsensical, unresolved, and extremely disappointing. The twist explaining the Parkers' deaths is extremely predictable and overdone. You might already know what it is.

  Look at the bright side, the acting is pretty good... for the most part. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone both do their roles admirably. So does Sally Field as Aunt May. And while Electro's character has the most basic of motivations, at least he's acted well thanks to Jamie Foxx. Rhino is played by Paul Giamatti, who you can tell is having fun hamming it up. But then there's Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn. At first he channels a young Leonardo DiCaprio, but then once (*ahem) something happens he starts channeling Frankie Muniz on crack. It looks really silly.

  In spite of Spider-Man's costume looking better, there are a bunch of dumb/cheesy production choices. A lot of fights seemed too short. Stan Lee's cameo was dull; he doesn't do or say anything. And the music cues are just weird and confusing. Apparently when electrical generators light up they sound off a musical note? There's also this weird tune that plays whenever we see Electro deep in thought and I'm not sure if the faint voices (that you can't quite make out anyways) are supposed to be in his head or if they're just song lyrics.

  Don't bother sitting through the end credits; there's nothing to see except an X-Men trailer that was so absurdly unexpected and out of place that I couldn't help but burst into laughter. What betrayal is this?!

  That kind of sums up Amazing Spider-man 2 in a nutshell. The plot is cluttered and overwhelming, as if they wrote two films into one. There is fun to be had here, but all the jumbled, confusing stuff makes it a hard movie to really get into.

Rating: two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Interstellar (2014)

Hey, folks. It's been a while since I've done a repost of a previously reviewed film (sorry, 'bout dat. I've been busy lately.) and today I'm highlighting a film I can't believe I haven't shared with you yet. This is Interstellar, one of the best movies I've ever reviewed. Has it really been four and a half years already? I remember this film being fascinating when I first saw it and upon repeat viewings it has lost its lustre at all. I have briefly mentioned Interstellar in other articles such as my 2018 Year in Review (just last month) and the Top 20 Best Films I've Ever Seen (November 2016) but now I'm finally uploading my original review from 2014 for your enjoyment. Thanks for reading.

  To infinity... and even further!! It seems fitting that this film would be playing at the Galaxy theatre! Hahaha... sorry. Let's just review this thing.

  Interstellar displays all the trademarks of a typical Christopher Nolan film: familiar cast/collaborators, a long run time, a huge budget, and a plot that is heavily based in both philosophy and metaphysical puzzles. A science fiction film that takes place in the near future (presumably, no dates are ever given), Interstellar is set in a world of privatized education, a drastically reduced government, and virtually no militaries. Sounds like paradise, right? Nope, because the now-largely-agrarian world is ravaged by a huge blight causing dust storms everywhere. A former NASA pilot, Cooper (McConaughey) is recruited to lead a mission to make contact with expeditions that have already landed on far away planets in order to gauge their habitability so that humanity can leave Earth. I'll try not to spoil the rest for you; it's a real melon-scratcher of a plot. And don't even think about asking me about the validity of the sciency stuff in this; I'm sure that Stephen Hawking fella can enlighten you. But while I'm pretty sure that artistic licence overtakes accuracy in the film's last twenty minutes, it doesn't diminish the film's enjoyability and I think it makes for a very strong ending. Even though the film is nearly three hours long, it certainly doesn't feel too long; I guess you could say that viewers will experience time dilation of their own! This is helped by the fact that Interstellar jettisons the unnecessary debates that plagued some other Nolan films (Dark Knight trilogy, anyone?). The story handily manages to be both thought-provoking and tear-jerking at times.

  Interstellar's acting is out of this world. The whole cast – especially McConaughey and Jessica Chastain – does a phenomenal job with only a few exceptions: Michael Caine's occasional unintelligible mumbling and Matt Damon's sometimes stiff dialogue.

  As for the production, it's the same high standards that you'd expect from a Christopher Nolan movie. The special effects – both practical and CG – are spot-on. Interstellar also has a powerful soundtrack that will seldom leave you wanting – although there's one scene in particular that might have benefited from the silly Star Trek fight music. Seriously though, it's one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a while.

  But as with all movies, Interstellar has a few puzzling oversights. We're not given very many details about what Earth is like in the future. The same can be said of the other planets that are explored in this film; they're about as creative as Star Wars planets (spoiler alert: Kamino, Tatooine, and Hoth appear in this movie). Also NASA comes off as a rather shady organization here with all the lying and double-crossing going on. And yet for such an important top-secret institution they sure do have lousy security.

  No matter. Interstellar is still a fantastic adventure from start to finish. It's a splendid-looking and -sounding spectacle that has decent drama and yet doesn't bore you with the interminable discussions that people often criticize Nolan films for. Offering lots in the way of science, fantasy, and surrealism, Interstellar is a very worthwhile experience.

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 -- X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Whoa. Research for my US presidential rankings article is taking way longer than I thought it would (I'm about 2/3 done). Sorry about that. In the meantime let's take a look at my original review of X-Men: Days of Future Past, a really good superhero film. In my opinion this was the best X-Men film of all until 2017's Logan hit the theatres. Plus it has Richard Nixon in it. Who doesn't love alternated history movies with Richard Nixon in them?

  Can't think of a proper introductory paragraph. Whatever, begin the review already!

  So X-Men: Days of Future Past begins in a dystopian future where Sentinels rule the Earth, enslaving/killing mutants and mutant sympathizers. Professor Xavier's surviving mutants send Wolverine's consciousness back to 1973 in an attempt to prevent the Sentinels from being created and thus save the world from devastation. So this movie actually has two plots/settings going on at once – resulting in simultaneous fight scenes – and it is presented splendidly. Everyone's favourite mutants can be found here as well as a few new ones like Warpath, Bishop, and Quicksilver. As always Hugh Jackman contributes an impeccable Wolverine portrayal. Both James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart give excellent, emotionally-charged dual performances as Professor X, who pretty much owns the film. Mystique's character is also fleshed out a bit more just as it was in First Class. And to top it all off we even get Richard Nixon! The only thing that's missing is a Stan Lee cameo. Seriously, where is he?

  Both the action scenes and special effects are very well done, reminiscent of the style of First Class. The jokes are decent and the set pieces are impressive. Also, if you've ever wanted to see Wolverine's butt then this movie is for you.

  However there are some problems present. Like why is Magneto such a counterproductive dick? And since when has Kitty Pride – the girl who can phase through solid objects – had the ability to project peoples' consciousness back through time? In 1973 Beast has found a cure for paralysis but he never bothers to share it with the rest of the world. What a jerk! There's also an unnecessary, ridiculous subplot about one mutant's involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Every successive line relating to it is even dumber than the last.

  Additionally, there's a few problems that have been carried over from other X-Men films too. We're still never given an explanation as to why/how Magneto's powers returned after losing them in X-Men 3. There's also no explanation for Professor X being alive after he died in X-Men 3. (And for those of you who say that he transferred his consciousness into a comatose man I still have some questions: Why does his new body look just like his original one? Why can't he walk still?) Days of Future Past also suffers from the same problem that plagued First Class: it doesn't fit in with the rest of the X-Men timeline (though just those two movies fit together OK). For example, Origins: Wolverine establishes that during this time period, Wolverine was working for Colonel Stryker with Sabretooth.

  But on its own, X-Men: Days of Future Past is a pretty good film. It has good action, exceptional acting, and a thought-provoking story. Come to think of it, the time-travelling, history-altering ending of this film kind of makes all the past plot inconsistencies not matter any more. Things are different now; it's as if they've rebooted the series without really rebooting it. It's incredible, really. This screenplay is a stroke of unparalleled genius!

  (Ahem.) It's pretty good despite evidence of several rewrites (some staple characters make only momentary appearances and a couple subplots end up going nowhere). X-Men fans and action fans will like it. The time-travelling and retcons give it a more comic book feel to it than First Class, which I'm sure some people will prefer. Just don't bother seeing it in 3D (in this case it isn't all that great).

Rating: three and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Olympus Has Fallen (2013)

   The time has come for me to return to my sticky, smelly, overpriced seat at the movie theatres! This is my review of Air Force One Part 2... er, I mean Die Hard the Remake... I mean Olympus Has Fallen.

   So yeah, this isn't exactly the most original movie to come out in recent years. We've all seen hostage movies before, some involving the President of the United States. So what does this one have to offer to make it stand out? At least it's not racist, right? Here's the plot: North Korean terrorists take over the White House and hold the President hostage and it's up to Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) to rescue him before the joint chiefs give in to their demands and put South Korea's safety in jeopardy. It is a movie with lots of violence, gore, torture, and profanity: perfect for a date.

   Unfortunately for non-Americans like me, this movie sure does kiss the USA's butt a lot. Be prepared for a lot of gratuitous American flag shots and unnecessary news reports telling us things that we just saw happen. But for a movie that glorifies Americans, there sure are a lot of stupid people. There's dozens of Secret Service agents charging into the open where machine gun fire cuts them down. What is this, Call of Duty? There's also the idiot Army Chief of Staff who sends in helicopters to be ambushed by an experimental new weapon even after he's informed of it's defensive readiness. After Banning asks how they'll destroy it, the Chief just says “don't worry about it” and the attack goes about as well as expected.

   Anyways Olympus Has Fallen has lots of one-liners, but only about half of them are any good. Some of them are terrible, others are so bad that they're unintentionally funny. The movie does benefit from some spectacular special effects, but the fistfight scenes suffer from that extremely close and choppy editing that I don't much care for. The rest of the action is pretty good, thanks in no small part to the directing.

   Most of the acting is pretty standard. The villain is rather stock, nothing new. Nevertheless, Butler's performance is very good. You can tell that he's having fun with this role.

   Unfortunately, Olympus Has Fallen has almost as many plotholes as bullet holes. How did an unidentified plane ever manage to get so close to the White House? Is it really a big deal for US troops to withdraw from the Korean DMZ? They can still stay in South Korea, you know. Why did the analysts say that the bad guy has never been photographed even as they're looking at a photograph of him? Is it really a big deal for nuclear missiles to self-destruct while still in their silos? You do know that nuclear warheads need to be armed in order to be detonated, right?

   Oh well, if there's one thing I've learned from this movie it's that the USA needs even more security. I guess this is just one of those movies where you need to turn your brain off for a while in order to truly enjoy. And for the most part this film is rather fun to watch; you might even laugh at one of the inadvertently silly parts. It's basically an action film with good direction and SFX.

Final rating: two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Gravity (2013)

  A good movie that isn't two-and-a-half freakin' hours long? Yes please! Gravity is to space thrillers as Scarface is to crime dramas. It makes Apollo 18 look like a hunk of space garbage (which it is).

  Gravity's story is simple, but engaging. It involves the crew of space shuttle mission STS-157 repairing space telescopes in the Earth's orbit. Unfortunately, they soon find themselves bombarded by debris from the destruction of an old Russian satellite, which destroys their space shuttle. Matt Kowalski and Ryan Stone are the only survivors – as well as the movie's only characters – and must find a way to safely make it back to Earth. We also get to see Stone re-evaluate her current outlook on life. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a nervous and withdrawn, yet quick-thinking engineer on her first mission. George Clooney plays Matt Kowalski, a calm and brave veteran astronaut who's equipped with a thruster pack. Both of their performances are excellent. The viewer can really see what's going on inside Stone's head and can sympathize with her easily.

  But where Gravity truly shines is in its cinematography. Without hesitation I can say that this is one of the best-looking movies I've ever seen. Most of the film consists of long, uninterrupted shots that really give the viewer the feeling of isolation in the vastness of space; the opening shot is held continuously for about eight to ten minutes straight. And when the movie wants the viewer to get the same claustrophobic feeling that the astronauts feel, it gives us point-of-view shots from inside their helmets or a wide angle shot of the cramped insides of an abandoned spacecraft. Combine all of this with the amazing special effects and you've got a gorgeous picture that's really a treat to see in 3-D.

  The score is also very effective at building tension. It's very atmospheric and sounds very modern and alien: kind of like The Social Network, but on drugs. I like it.

  The movie tries going for a very realistic approach in portraying what a zero gravity vacuum environment is like. The only thing that kind of bothered me was how simple it seems for Stone and Kowalski to spacewalk between space stations. It only takes them a few minutes to leapfrog between installations. Are they really that close in real life?

  Whatever. Gravity is still a wonder of space cinema. It has great acting, effects, music, and camerawork. It's the best movie I've seen so far this year. If you're the least bit interested, then go watch it. And make sure it's in 3-D.

Rating: five stars out of five!

Movie Review Repost -- Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2012)

Hey, guys! Didn't have time to write anything this week. You know what that means: a repost of a previous review from the Facebook days. This time we're taking a look back at the first movie I ever gave five stars to: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. To my regret I haven't seen this film since it hit theatres, but I remember it being really fun and I love to see it again sometime.

  Wow. This movie is incredible. I'm going to try to keep this short to give you plenty of time to do what I think you should be doing, which is watching the movie! Seriously: go watch it.

  Mission Impossible 4 has superb acting, brilliant action scenes, and a solid plot. Simply put, this movie is a ton of fun to watch. The plot centres around agent Ethan Hunt and his team as they try to stop a madman who has stolen Russian nuclear launch codes from starting a nuclear war. The action scenes include a prison riot in Moscow, a chase scene in Budapest, a fight scene in an automated parking garage, and a car chase scene in the middle of a sandstorm. My favourite scene is where Hunt has to climb the outside of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building ever made. This is where you start to notice how amazing the editing is, with sickening camera angles and highly effective sound effects. Thanks to the IMAX that this movie was shot in, you will get vertigo like you wouldn't believe. Just the thought of watching this scene in 3-D makes me feel sick.

  As I mentioned earlier, the acting is some of the finest that action movies have to offer. Tom Cruise continues his role as the courageous Ethan Hunt. Jeremy Renner portrays agent Brandt: badass. The beautiful Paula Patton is agent Jane Carter, who is out for revenge for the murder of her lover. Lastly, we have Simon Pegg as Benji, the quirky, funny computer geek.

  One of the only things wrong that I can think of is the confusing and just downright dumb opening credits. But it's only the opening credits, so really, who cares? This isn't a perfect movie, but any cons it may have are far outweighed by its pros. Anyone who likes action movies must see Ghost Protocol.

  Final Rating: Five 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 -- Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2014)

Once again I don't have anything new to show you this week. You know what that means: a repost of an earlier review I wrote during my Facebook days. This week let's take a look back at Anchorman 2. This movie was brilliant. I loved it then and I love it now. And yes, I still think it's better than the original.

  Happy belated New Year, and what better way to start it than with Anchorman 2, the long-awaited sequel to one of Will Ferrell's most beloved comedies.

  Anchorman 2 takes place in the 1980's, several years after the events of the first film. Ron Burgundy and his wife Veronica Corningstone are both big name co-anchors in New York City, but when only Veronica is promoted to nightly news Ron becomes jealous and leaves her and their son Walter. It's now up to Ron to reassemble his old news team – Champ, Brian, and Brick – in order to help launch the world's first 24 hour news network.

  Anchorman 2 retains the cast of the previous film and uses them to great effect. The news crew guys are all great improv comedians. There are even a few jokes from the first film that are brought back with a new twist, like Brian's cologne cabinet and the joyously zany news crew brawl. Admittedly there are a few jokes that fall flat but they don't by any means ruin the scene. This movie is actually two hours long, but it never feels like it's dragging on for too long. Even the comparatively slow parts are still entertaining.

  Perhaps the biggest difference between this film and the first is that the plot in Anchorman 2 seems way busier. Both films had plots that were all over the place, but the sequel has more subplots and a longer running time (by about half an hour). This is a good thing because it gives Anchorman 2 the opportunity to tell a wider variety of jokes. This time we get race jokes and a more satirical commentary on modern TV news reporting. As with the first film there's a subplot about Ron having a rivalry with another prominent news anchor, but it's much more developed here than in the last one (basically just tacked on there). Perhaps most notably, Brick gets an expanded role and there also various subplots involving Ron's new boss Linda, censorship by the network's owner, and Ron's relationship with his son.

  In short, it feels as if there's more at stake: that there's more going on. And it's for this reason that I think Anchorman 2 is better than its predecessor. It may not be quite as quotable, but it is funnier and more enjoyable. If you liked the first movie (or any other Will Ferrell movies) then this one is definitely worth a watch.

Rating: three and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Remember when Sherlock Holmes movies were a thing? I do. They were both pretty good, entertaining films back in the day. In this day and age it's a wonder why they didn't try to franchise it up and make half a dozen of them. Oh well, at least we've got two fun flicks to look back on and remember. Speaking of which, here's the review I wrote for the second film back in 2011. Enjoy.

  The first new movie I've seen since September, Sherlock Holmes 2 is a fast-paced crime thriller well worth the time and money I spent.

  Like the first film this one takes place in 1891, but rather than just London, Holmes' investigations take him all across Europe to exciting new locations. Holmes and Watson are after a professor who is trying to start an international war by bombing high-profile targets posed as terrorist attacks because he owns several arms contractors and will get rich off a major war. Meanwhile Holmes' and Watson's friendship becomes strained, since in order to recruit Watson – just married – for this investigation Holmes had to interrupt his honeymoon. This two-hour plot has lots of action scenes and more subtle humour than the first Sherlock Holmes movie. Unfortunately, the ending is poorly handled and has some loose threads.

  As with the first film, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law do a top-notch job portraying Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson respectively. The actor playing that French gyspy chick . . . meh. Irene Adler, investigator and love interest to Holmes from the first movie, is back but is killed off early in the film. It's not even a cool death; she dies like a chump.

  I found this film's editing to be astounding, especially during the action scenes where we get that slow-mo “bullet time”. The special effects work well, as do the impressive sound effects/editing. You'll feel as if you are right in the middle of those firefights. One thing that bugged me was the the movie's title. Why give it a subtitle? The first one didn't have one so why not just call it “Sherlock Holmes 2”? Maybe I'm just nitpicking; who knows.

  Despite its comparably minor flaws, Game of Shadows is still a fun and intriguing film. This movie has a little something for everybody. So if you're interested in seeing this one, I'd recommend giving it a try.

Three and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I've been working on some new stuff these past few days and I promise I'll have it ready to go for next week. But for now let's have a look at the previous Thor movie, The Dark World and why I thought it was a disappointment. My thoughts on it haven't changed since 2013, though I wouldn't mind watching it again since I've kind of forgotten most of what happened in it. Enjoy.

  It's not easy to write these reviews when there's a cat sitting between you and the computer. Anyways, Thor: The Dark World! (Damn you, Willy for ruining my intro!)

  Thor 2 was OK. Really OK. It follows Thor and his girlfriend Jane Foster as they strive to defend the Nine Realms against the no-longer-dormant threat of the Dark Elves who have located the no-longer-missing ultimate weapon, the Aether. In addition to some fun new characters we're also treated to all the classic ones from the previous film, all brilliantly acted. This includes Loki, the most entertaining Marvel movie villain ever, the guy who steals every scene he's in and keeps you guessing as to what he's going to do next.

  At times the story seems rather rushed, especially in the beginning where it seems as if we're given a lot to swallow in 15-20 minutes. The same can be said of the fighting scenes; they often end abruptly with a very fast move that you can't really see. This movie also ends in a not-unpredictable cliffhanger. The mid-credits scene is a great big WTF moment and, let me tell you, the post-credits scene is pointless. Don't waste your time waiting for it.

  As with the first Thor movie, The Dark World has good special effects and is really funny when it wants to be (although some of the jokes were kind of predictable).

  Unfortunately, the film's main villain, Malekith (or Malarkey as I call him), isn't all that interesting. He commands an army of dark elves who carry cool weapons and can turn into Hulk-like monsters but wear these silly-looking masks that make me chuckle. And please tell me: why exactly do they want to destroy the universe anyways? Also, the Asgardians apparently just rebuilt the Bifrost that Thor destroyed in the previous film, thus completely validating one of my complaints from that film two years ago.

  In short, Thor: The Dark World is an OK film, but not nearly as good as the first. The story isn't as complete and the characters aren't as developed. In the first Thor movie, characters learn lessons and go through changes. The sequel, on the other hand, is just one of those good-guy-fights-bad-guy movies. But for what it is, it's entertaining enough and worth seeing once.

Rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- World War Z (2013)

So guess what: I'm in the middle of packing/moving again, which means that I haven't had much time to spare for writing lately. Sorry about that. I've got ideas for new material, but it may be a week or two before I can get any of them written and posted. In the meantime let's take a look back at the review I wrote in 2013 for the action-horror flick World War Z. I liked it. I know a lot of people didn't think much of it and I don't fully understand why. It was alright; perhaps an In Defence Of article is in order?

  Is it just me or are there, like, a ton of zombie shows nowadays? I wonder why people like them. Is it because these stories demonstrate how fragile civilization is? Or do people like seeing mindless walkers being shot by the hundreds? Rejoice, zombie fans; World War Z has both of these elements!

  World War Z's story follows Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a UN inspector, in his worldwide search to find and halt the rapid spread of a rabies-like virus that turns people into zombies. This highly suspenseful plot wastes no time getting straight to the action; zombies appear within the movie's first five minutes. Conversely, one thing you might notice about World War Z is that there's actually a lot of pointless stuff. There's pointless locations (South Korea), pointless characters (Thomas and Dr. Fassbach), and pointless plotlines (Gerry's family having to leave the navy ship). However, even though the movie is nearly two hours, the story never feels like it's dragging on and manages to be entertaining throughout. One thing that you might find disappointing is that the climax isn't as impressive as the rest of the film might condition you to expect. It's hard to explain; let's just say that you may be surprised at where the film decides to end.

  There's only a handful of characters that get any significant fleshing-out, but the acting is good from one end to the other, especially from Brad Pitt. Just remember to stay away from him if a zombie apocalypse ever does break out. Pretty much everyone around him ends up dying; he's like a bad luck charm. But to be fair that's partially because he's surrounded by clumsy characters who take forever to learn basic things like not making noise or how to not shoot yourself.

  As you've probably seen from the trailers, there are some impressive long shots from this film's action scenes. Unfortunately some of the fight scenes (not all, but some) suffer from the menace that is shaky cam. (Also the 3D in this movie is pointless. Don't bother with it.) And like so many other zombie apocalypse shows we don't learn where or how the zombie virus originated. Also, why don't the humans just let the zombies starve to death? Or would that be double death, I guess? Whatever.

  Anyways, World War Z is a fine addition to the zombie horror genre. For a movie about a zombie apocalypse it's relatively bloodless, which is fine if you're like me and prefer suspense to gore. Both horror and action fans will be able to enjoy this film.

Rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Apollo 18 (2011)

All Hallows Eve approaches. I'm sorry I haven't got anything new for you this weekend, so I figured I should look back at one of the few horror movie reviews I did in my early days of reviewing (and it's not the greatest review I've ever written). This is the sci-fi found footage film Apollo 18. It was mediocre and didn't leave much of an impression on me. I've not seen it since and I've barely thought about it since. So I guess my opinions are unchanged...

  The summer is at an end and last weekend I tried to fit in one more movie viewing. I chose Apollo 18, a horror/sci-fi flick set in the early seventies about the supposed last lunar mission.

  This movie is filmed in found-footage style, meaning that the cinematography is similar to grainy, staticy late-sixties video camera footage, so get used to seeing cameras malfunction and flicker around and go offline; it happens every five minutes. I can't help but wonder if that was even necessary. Anyways, don't expect to see a masterpiece of film here. The plot is very cliched and unoriginal and somewhat predictable. The film has a noticeably slow start as well as a few slow moments throughout.

  What did I like about this movie? Well the special effects look great, but with the grainy, low-res footage, making good looking special effects on this film couldn't have been that difficult. The acting is better than average, but the actors' best efforts are inhibited by the underdeveloped characters. By the end of the film you still won't really know that much about the three characters.

  During those slow boring parts, you'll find yourself thinking of plotholes and other weird stuff. Like why did Commander Walker want to be saved even though five minutes earlier he didn't want to go back to Earth fearing he'd infect the whole planet? And how come the aliens attacked on this mission but not the other moon missions? Unless the producers... And then it hits you: you're watching a hippie movie! Think about it, the pieces of the puzzle are all there: faked moon landings, the government being portrayed as evil, indigenous creatures fighting back (AKA environmentalism/anti-racism), technology being portrayed as useless, the USSR being depicted in a sympathetic manner...

  Wow. I've got to go warn people of this. Meanwhile, you should stay away from this crazy movie unless you really want to kill some brain cells. (And to think I chose this instead of My Idiot Brother!)

Rating: Two stars out of five

Movie Review Repost -- Men in Black 3 (2012)

Sorry, guys. Still nothing new this week. I'll have something new for you next week but today we're going to take a look back at my review of Men in Black 3. I loved the first Men in Black when I was a kid and I still do today. Men in Black 2 was a lame disappointment overcome with a serious case of sequelitis. As for the third film, I haven't seen it since it was in theatres but I sure wouldn't mind watching it again. It was, and is still, pretty good.

  Better late than never, right? We've got a sequel that took ten years to get made, and you're reading a review that got written 20 days late. Sorry. But was this unexpected addition to the series worth it (the movie, I mean)?

  The answer is (probably) yes. It's good old sci-fi fun! The aliens are creative, the action scenes are astounding, and the special effects have improved in the ten years since the last film. The plot involves J going back in time to stop an alien supervillain (who also went back in time) from changing history and thus taking over the world. Unfortunately this means (for spoiler-ridden reasons) that K – Tommy Lee Jones' character – only has about 25 minutes of screentime.

  But that's OK, because instead we have Josh Brolin portraying the young agent K, and he does a spot-on job. He even looks just like Jones! Another example of great casting is Jemaine Clement as Boris the Animal. He was so good, I mistook him for Tim Curry with that really deep voice. And then there's Will Smith as agent J. He's still pretty good, but his performance isn't as funny or energetic as it used to be; it's starting to come off as a bit tired.

  When compared against the first Men in Black movie, this one isn't as funny, but it has way better special effects. Compared against the second movie, Men in Black 3 is much more memorable and it doesn't have a laughably hokey plot! If you like aliens, time travel, or just sci-fi in general, you'll quite like this one.

Final rating: three-and-a-half stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- 30 Minutes or Less (2011)

Let's take a look back at one of my earliest reviews, 30 Minutes or Less, a forgotten comedy from 2011. I thought it was lame. I still think it was lame... I guess. It's not all that memorable so I can't really say I've thought about it much recently. Really the only notable thing about this movie is that Nick Swardson -- actor I hate the most-- isn't terrible in this. That's about all I can think to say of this film. Enjoy.

  This movie is bland. So bland that it's actually hard for me to think of things to write here. In fact, this must have been how the writers of the movie felt.

  30 Minutes or Less is the first comedy movie I've reviewed and the most important part of making a comedy is having an engaging plot. The plot is about a guy named Nick who is forced to rob a bank for someone named Dwayne because he is stuck to a bomb and he only has 10 hours to do it before its timer runs out. Sounds exciting, right? Except Nick and his buddy Chet keep getting caught in off-topic arguments that slow down the plot. OK, to be fair there are a few thrilling scenes like the bank robbery scene and the car chase scenes. But towards the end of the movie there's less and less jokes, and it feels almost like an action movie. The ending is really abrupt and leaves the viewer with a buttload of unanswered questions.

  Now for the jokes: some of them work, some of them don't work. By the end you'll have become used to the thoughtless automatic laughter you're emitting. You know those hilarious laugh-out-loud moments that you remember forever and quote whenever possible? Yeah, this movie has none of those.

  For the most part, the acting was pretty good. The only thing that bothered me was that Kate, Nick's love interest and Chet's sister, was so underdeveloped and banal. She's just there to look pretty and to cause tension between Nick and Chet.

  Overall, little effort was put into making this unremarkable snore-fest. There are better comedies out there. Watch them instead.

One and a half stars out of five. (Hey, I wrote a lot!)

Movie Review Repost -- The Lone Ranger (2013)

The season of summer blockbusters is upon us! Let's take a look back at a highly anticipated, big-budget one from a few years back, The Lone Ranger. I like western films and I was actually looking forward to this one. Unfortunately it turned out to be a real disappointment, with a lame hero, a bloated run time, and general nonsense. It ended up being one of the biggest box office bombs of the year thanks to its astoundingly high budget of approximately $260 million. While I now realize that it's OK for a western to take an occasional dive into the realm of over-the-top-ness, the fact remains that this movie is a catastrophe that should be remembered. So let's have a moment of silence for this film that could've been so awesome if its script was just tweaked a little bit.

  Two-and-a-half hours. Ugh. So for those of you who don't know, The Lone Ranger (2013) is pretty much a remake of The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981) except with no plot to kidnap the president. We've had enough presidential action movies for one summer.

  It follows ex-Ranger John Reid and his Native American friend Tonto on their quest for revenge and justice against the guys who murdered their loved ones and are engineering a war to profit off of. It is a drawn-out story involving unoriginal plot lines and a title character who dates his brother Dan's widow just days after her husband's death. What a nice guy. In fact for most of the movie the Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer) is kind of a weenie. He is largely overshadowed by his eccentric sidekick Tonto played by Johnny Depp who unfortunately is about as Native as me. For villains we have Butch Cavendish, the cannibalistic murderer who looks a lot like Captain Barbossa (this film was made by the same guys who did POTC, you know). Our other villain is railroad tycoon Latham Cole (AKA Lord Bosscrime).

  One of the things you'll notice rather quickly about this film is that the studios involved tried to make it appropriate for children but also appealing to adults. This makes the film into a clumsy combination of sometimes dumb jokes (including poop jokes) and surprisingly graphic violence for a Disney film. The whole movie is told through flashbacks by Tonto (who of course can recall in great detail events that he was not present to witness), and this only serves to both pad out the already long run time and to make the film more child-friendly. Just like with Pirates of the Caribbean, the action scenes are terrifically over-the-top spectacles: the kind where people are thrown and tossed around like rag dolls and yet never seem to break any bones. These kinds of overblown action scenes seem ill-suited to the western genre which is normally more grounded in reality. Nevertheless one thing that this movie does extremely well is the setting. The highly-detailed sets and the panoramic longshots look amazing.

  Sadly, Lone Ranger drops the ball on so many occasions. Characters will inexplicably become stupid for the sake of plot convenience, while other characters will suddenly remember how to speak a second language halfway through a scene! The running gag of people not understanding the mask was not funny at all. The one-legged prostitute chick was pointless; she has about four minutes of screen time and in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter much. Additionally there are so many things that don't make any sense whatsoever. Like how did Tonto get so good a making bullets? How can a horse pull a buried person out of the ground by only that person's teeth? Why was a stationary ceremonial train full of passengers? Why does Cole allow Cavendish to walk around out in the open even after showing his wanted poster to everybody? Does Cole really think the railroad board members are just going to let him get away with his illegal takeover of the company? Why was that part even necessary? I'd think that by this stage in the movie the audience is already pretty sure that he's a bad guy.

  In short, the Lone Ranger is an overblown, over-hyped, over-budgeted mess of a western that tries appealing to too many people at once. It's comparable to POTC; it isn't as needlessly complicated but it somehow manages to have the same run time. Really the only people who I can recommend this film for is western fans – beggars can't be choosers, right? – and Johnny Depp fans. This movie should've been called The Adventures of Tonto and his Weenie Sidekick, the Lone Ranger.

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

Movie Review Repost -- The Lego Movie (2014)

Another busy week where I had no time to write up something new. You know what that means: a repost of an older review. Let's look at The Lego Movie from 2014. Looking back, this movie is just as fun as it was back then. If you still haven't seen it, then give it a try. Everything is awesome about it.

   You know, theatrically released movies about toys aren't always that great: Transformers, GI Joe, The Care Bears, Garbage Pail Kids... Fortunately, The Lego Movie breaks this mould spectacularly and plays by its own set of instructions.

   Here's a toy movie that's very much self aware and actually casts the toys as its characters; it's one of those films that knows how silly it is and has fun with it. The story follows Emmet, an ordinary construction worker Lego figure who is prophesied to become a master builder and save the Lego world from the tyrannical Lord Business. Along the way he gets help from an assortment of other Lego characters including Metal Beard the Pirate, a cat-unicorn hybrid, a 1980's astronaut, a wizard, a two-faced cop, the 2002 NBA All-Star team, the crew of the Millennium Falcon, and Batman just to name a few. We also get to see a wide variety of settings (but I won't spoil it for you here). Anyways, the story is surprisingly intricate; the finale gives us a decent twist and a heart-warming ending. And of course, the film is relentlessly funny. The jokes just keep coming out one after the other, satirizing everything from Lego toys, society, commercialism, and other movies as well. The Lego Movie boasts an ensemble cast – Chris Pratt, Will Ferrell, Liam Neeson, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, and Morgan Freeman – all doing a fine job, with some (Ferrell, Neeson) even playing multiple roles.

   The animation was fascinating. The Lego figures are all computer-generated, but appear as they do in real life and their movement is made to resemble stop-motion animation (with their faces being the only part of them that actually moves).

   Really, the only problem I have with The Lego Movie is that maybe it's a little too fast-paced. If you blink, you might miss an important plotpoint. Similarly, the action scenes are very rushed: fights barely last longer than several seconds. It'd be nice to have a little more time to appreciate the effort that went into making this breath-taking animation, don't you think?

   Regardless, The Lego Movie is still a grand adventure. Is it a plug for Lego products? Absolutely, but it's much more than the worthless cash-grab it easily could have been. There was real effort put into this project. It's an incredibly fun flick that'll make you feel like a kid again: suitable for both kids and adults.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five

Movie Review Repost -- Looper (2012)

So I spent this morning washing my car in the hot spring sun. Staring at my modern-looking vehicle juxtaposed against the lush scenery of the farms right next to my house reminded me of the scenery of Looper, a 2012 sci-fi thriller film set in Kansas in 2044. So since I don't have anything new to show you this week (I will next week, don't worry) I thought it might be cool to elaborate on what I think is one of the most underrated films of 2012. Enjoy!

   During a momentary lull in the never-ending barrage of homework and tests I managed to find the time to watch a movie this week. I saw Looper, a time-travel action/thriller movie. And yes, it was a good choice (I mean did you even look at this article's title?).

   Right away, you'll be drawn into this movie's fascinating world set in 2044. The film follows Joe Simmons (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a mob assassin known as a “looper” because he kills victims who are sent back in time from the future. Things turn serious when Joe encounters his older self (Bruce Willis) who wants to change the future. The story seems rather original (though it is somewhat comparable to Terminator, I guess). I especially like the part where Joe goes into a diner and has a really uncomfortable conversation with his older self. Looper's plot is smart and engaging, as well as funny at certain moments.

   Looper also benefits from a talented cast. Joseph Gordon-Levitt does a great job portraying Joe, the cocky, selfish, drug-addicted looper living in Kansas City. Old Joe, played by Bruce Willis, is not nearly as arrogant but instead is full of regret towards the life he led. Even the child actor who plays Cid is impressive; he comes off as really smart yet troubled.

   There's so many other things I could talk about that were brilliantly done: Gordon-Levitt's makeup that makes him look like Willis, the great special effects, the dialogue, the action, the ending... The only real complaint I have is that they could have explained the whole telekinesis thing a little better, especially since it plays a rather important role towards the end. (Did I forget to mention that in the future some people have limited telekinesis?)

   In spite of this, Looper is still an awesome movie. Action fans will like it. Sci-fi fans will like it. If you're even the least bit interested, then you definitely should go see it.

Final rating: five stars out of five!