Movie Review -- No Time To Die

 Time, Mr. Craig? Is it really that time again? It seems as if you only just arrived. You've done a great deal in a small time span. So it's only fitting that you go out with a bang, wouldn't you say? Yes the time for No Time To Die has finally come. After nearly two years of anxious waiting this damned film finally saw theatres and at last we can take in what is Daniel Craig's last outing as agent 007. His filmography in this series has been uneven so far, so does No Time To Die end his run on a high note? Let's take a look.

After an opening scene split into two parts – a flashback and a scene that happens right after the end of Spectre – NTTD picks up five years later with a retired James Bond living in Jamaica. He's approached by the CIA – and discouraged by MI6 – to assist in the search for a missing scientist who's developed a nanotechnology weapon that can kill pre-programmed targets. The trail leads him to some shadowy organizations and forces him to reconsider his lover Madeleine Swann. Honestly, this is a plot that has more in common with Mission Impossible films than Bond films: a generic spy movie premise, fanciful sci-fi situations, a story that focuses on the hero's personal life, and the highest stakes possible.

Nevertheless there is still the old 007 familiarity that accompanies No Time To Die, from the gunbarrel opening to the customary supporting characters and everything in between. Seriously, there are a ton of references and callbacks in this film, including but not limited to musical themes, models of cars, lines of dialogue, and portraits on walls. Try to spot them all! We even get the welcome return of post-kill one-liners and those henchmen who are based around one particular gimmick. And of course there's some great action scenes throughout put on dazzling display thanks to the capable cinematography and the often simplistic, yet lived-in looking set design. I especially loved the last 40 minutes or so: it includes this one gunfight in a stairway that's up close, consists of long shots, and is relentlessly intense. It beats any action scene found in Spectre by a mile.

While the acting is fine across the board the characters are a bit of a mixed bag. For instance, Rami Malek delivers the creepiness as villain Lyutsifer Safin (real subtle with the name there...) but after his chilling introduction his subsequent appearances have diminishing returns, not helped by the fact that his endgame remains a little unclear. Lashana Lynch shows up as Nomi, the new agent 007 since Bond's retirement. Her character's not so bad though she could have used a bit more development. On the other hand we have Ana de Armas as the inexperienced, yet effervescent agent Paloma. Her appearance in NTTD is brief but delightfully fun.

But perhaps the most surprising performance comes from Daniel Craig himself. In contrast to Craig's usual Bond exploits, No Time To Die's Bond is much more talkative, jokey, and expressive than the cool, steely agent we've seen before. Although some might argue this is because Bond's personal life plays a bigger role in NTTD, it still doesn't quite seem right.

As far as overall quality goes I'd rank No Time To Die squarely in the middle of Daniel Craig's 007 films. (Expect an updated Bond films rankings sometime soon!) While it doesn't hit the highs set by Casino Royale and Skyfall, it's at least better than Quantum of Solace and its predecessor Spectre thanks to its more exciting action, more colourful characters, and more memorable story. If it weren't for Craig's atypical performance, the fantastic premise, and the bloated length – not to mention the forgettable theme song – this could have been truly great. But as it is No Time To Die is a suitable end to the Craig era of Bond. Mission accomplished.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Tenet

 

  Man, has it really been six months since my last movie review? It's been a while, hasn't it? Time sure does fly. I wish I could have all this lost time back. If only I could go back... Go back... Time... Christopher Nolan. Yeah, today's movie is Nolan's latest, Tenet, a film in which the infamously metaphysical, space-bending director goes all in and finally makes a straight-up time-travel film. So is it any good? Let's find out.

  Tenet is about an unnamed secret agent who, after a botched hostage rescue mission, is recruited into a secret organization called Tenet. The Protagonist is tasked with leading an investigation into objects and weapons whose temporal disposition has become “inverted” – i.e. they move backwards through time. By tracing these objects' origins he hopes to avert a worldwide catastrophe. This is a great idea for a film; we get loads of twisted action scenes with cars speeding backwards, bullets flying back into guns, people having awkward fights with inverted people. There's also occasionally the same scene shown from different points of view simultaneously depending on which characters are inverted or not. And this is in addition to the frequent cutaways of concurrent scenes that Christopher Nolan films are notorious for. This all makes for a mind-bending and cerebral plot that can be kind of hard to understand if you're not paying the utmost attention. But if you're into non-linear storytelling, Tenet is right up your alley. Its two-and-a-half hours goes by rather briskly.

  Bringing this plot to life is a talented cast which, in true Christopher Nolan fashion, sees the return of some familiar faces from the director's previous works. Back from Dunkirk is Kenneth Branagh as the intimidating Andrei Sator. (Michael Caine also lends a mandatory, albeit brief, appearance.) The other actor that really shines in Tenet is Elizabeth Debicki as Kat, Sator's estranged wife who's desperate to free their son from his criminal clutches. Robert Pattinson looks right at home as the unflappable and dependable agent Neil. The only disappointment in the casting lies with John David Washington as the Protagonist. There's a line early on in the film where one character tells him that their conversation has to be to-the-point and without any small talk. Apparently Washington obeyed this line like the word of God because his character is more-or-less a blank slate, largely devoid of personality.

  The production values on Tenet are on par with what you'd expect from a Nolan film. The compositions and cinematography – combined with the backwards-moving events – make this film a real treat for the eyes and will leave you wondering just how much of this stuff was done in-camera. Knowing the director the answer is probably all of it! While Tenet is one of the best-looking Nolan films out there, the film's sound design is more of a mixed bag. The pulse-pounding score from Ludwig Goransson fits well with its hair-rising horns and electronic compositions. However the sound mixing needed some more work; the sound effects and (sometimes) the music is too loud, making it hard to make out dialogue during action scenes. At first I wanted to chalk it up to the fact that I saw this movie in a really loud IMAX theatre, but I've heard other critics are making similar complaints.

  Overall, Tenet is a visually stunning, daringly fanciful sci-fi action flick with some flaws. The main character isn't all that memorable and the plot verges on confusing. But I will say that if you want to see time-travel done differently this one is well worth checking out. Time well spent.

Grade:

Movie Review -- John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum

  Screw Avengers: Endgame. This is the movie I've been looking forward to seeing in 2019! John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum is the latest instalment in what I consider to be the best new action franchise of this decade. The previous film in the series (reviewed February 2017) utterly blew me away and its ending gave this third film plenty to work with as far as story goes. So did Parabellum match the high calibre of its predecessors or has this series fired its last bullet? Let's take a look.

  Chapter 3 starts off right at the end of Chapter 2, with hitman John Wick on the run from countless assassins due to his actions in the previous film. With badguys coming at him from all sides John desperately tries to clear his name with the High Table. It's a plot that continues the world-building we saw in Chapter 2. We meet a few more important characters and we learn a lot more about how the whole secret-society-of-assassins works. For example, being a hitman apparently requires you to frequently mutilate yourself in front of your bosses. We also get some insight into John's origin as well as his real name.

  We're also presented with a load of action scenarios new to the series, such as a chase scene on horseback, a knife fight in the middle of a knife store/armoury, and (basically) ninjas. It's the good old over-the-top action we've come to love about this franchise, and while it doesn't go as far as slapstick territory the film definitely has a sense of humour at times as evidenced by the abundance of attacks to the crotch. The only thing I wasn't too keen on was how it was unclear whether killings in full view of the public were being noticed or not.

  Keanu Reeves returns as the title character and he's in as good a form as ever. However I did notice that the character of John Wick seems a little less sympathetic this time around. All the trouble that he's now in: he brought that upon himself and now he's dealing with the consequences. It's also unclear what his motivation is. In the previous films he was out for revenge or he was doing things that he was obligated to do, but in Parabellum it isn't all that convincing or clear of what it is that he's got to live for. Familiar characters have returned from the previous films – yes, even the dog with no name. Lawrence Fishburne is once again the Bowery King, hamming it up and loving every minute of it. Even Charon, the concierge, gets to kick some ass this time. There's also Halle Berry who plays one of Wick's old assassin buddies. Her acting is merely OK, but at least she's pretty good in the action scenes.

  And when it comes to John Wick movies that's what people go to see isn't it? Yes, the series trademark action makes its triumphant return with its spectacular choreography and breakneck speed thanks to returning director Chad Stahelski. The fight scenes and shootouts are exhilarating: close up and not too shaky, unlike the viewer who will be trying their best to not blink! The rest of the movie has that familiar, modern visual style the series is known for. Even visual elements such as lens flares – which I usually dislike – are used to heighten suspense. Parabellum's sound design also deserves a lot of credit. The thunderous gunshots, the explosive shattering of glass, and the enhanced punch/kick sounds all serve to make the action scenes that much more visceral and impactful.

  And that about sums up John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. It's an intensely fun experience that ups the ante in terms of action spectacle, and a worthy addition to this great franchise. If you didn't care much for the other John Wick films then this one probably won't win you over. But for everyone else, prepare to have your socks knocked off yet again.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Cold Pursuit

  Oh yeah, that's right: there was a Liam Neeson action movie this year about him killing people over problems with one of his children. Because we don't have enough of those, right? To be honest, I haven't seen any of the Taken films but I think I've got the gist of them: don't mess with Neeson's kids. Although Cold Pursuit isn't in that series, one can certainly be forgiven for believing it is after seeing this film's trailer. So does the latest entry in this particular set of genre films – films that have been produced over a very long career, films that are a nightmare for people who don't like action – have anything different to offer? Let's take a look.

  Cold Pursuit is centred around Nelson Coxman, a soft-spoken snowplow driver in a ski resort town in Colorado. After his son turns up dead from a suspiciously out-of-character drug overdose Nelson begins his vengeful campaign against local drug dealers. However this gets the attention of the guys at the top and things quickly spiral out of control. It reminds me a lot of Fargo, just swap out the kidnapping and ransom for good old-fashioned revenge. Not only does Cold Pursuit share that film's snow-covered rural setting but it also shares an interesting sense of dark humour. I like it; the black comedy is what keeps this film from being just another generic action movie. There's even hints of slapstick and self-aware humour as well. The only downside to this is that in the wake of the swift ending the viewer is left with a bunch of unanswered questions: was that one guy paragliding all night long?

  Cold Pursuit is populated by lots of relatable characters who seem normal at first, but each have their unusual quirks. Chief among the oddballs is the main villain Viking played by Tom Bateman. Bateman does a delightful job playing a psychopathic drug lord who's also an unusually uptight father. He steals whatever scene he's in. The other grand performance is of course Liam Neeson's as Nels Coxman. This character truly is an ordinary guy in every sense of the word; he's a small-town, middle-aged man who has no witty quips or noble speeches, is not a convincing liar, and is a stranger to brutal violence. Watching him go through his quest for vengeance and deal with its consequences – and oddities – makes for a fascinating trip.

  In terms of direction, Cold Pursuit is a good-looking movie with plenty of landscape shots, both beautiful and ominous. Editing is handled in a way that enhances the comedy, such as cutaways after certain characters deaths for example. (Revealing anything further would be spoiler territory.)

  In conclusion, I'd say that if you like Quentin Tarantino movies then you'll enjoy Cold Pursuit. It's got all the action-thriller fare of a usual Neeson-type flick but with some quirky gallows humour and sophisticated direction to elevate it into above-average territory.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Mission Impossible: Fallout

  How many movie series can you think of that manage to maintain a high standard of quality after six instalments? After seeing its latest offering, I'm definitely thinking of Mission Impossible as a prime candidate. Having only seen parts 4 and 5, I was curious to see what new stuff Fallout would bring to the table. Did it measure up to the greatness of Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation? Let's find out.

  Fallout's plot ties in closely with that of Rogue Nation: after the capture of Syndicate leader Solomon Lane his former associates have, for some reason, formed into the Apostles, an anarchist terrorist group. It's up to Ethan Hunt and his team to prevent the Apostles from making nuclear weapons while working with/against some old friends/enemies as well as some new ones. It's an alright plot with lots of thrills, laughs, BMW product placement, and deal-making/backstabbing to make one's head spin. The only complaint I have story-wise is that there's some stuff involving Julia, Ethan's ex-wife, that comes off as kind of sappy and arguably unnecessary.

  Fallout has plenty of exciting action scenes featuring some killer stunt work and seamless special effects – it looks like Henry Cavill's moustache is really there! – that we're used to from this series. Did you know that Tom Cruise actually did real-life HALO jumps for this movie? Isn't that amazing? But while the action scenes were pretty cool I can't help but think that there's less of them from this film that'll stand out in my mind, not like the Burj Khalifa scene from Ghost Protocol or the diving scene from Rogue Nation. Fallout's action sequences are still good and are aided by its lively direction and its restless soundtrack.

  The film also boasts a talented cast capable of fully bringing each character to life. Tom Cruise brings his trademark mixture of intensity and relatability that few other action heroes can. Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg return as the lovable Luther and Benji respectively. Back from Rogue Nation are Rebecca Ferguson as Ilsa Faust and Sean Harris as Solomon Lane. Not only are these characters a joy to watch, but they add a new level of continuity and drama to the series. Even CNN anchorman Wolf Blitzer makes a guest appearance doing what he does best: delivering fake news. Really the only casting misstep I can think of is that the actresses playing Julia and Ilsa look a bit too similar. Maybe it's because I'm not all that familiar with Julia, but there were several times where I kept confusing the two of them.

  And that's Mission Impossible: Fallout, another great addition to this heavyweight action series which only seems to get better with age. If you liked the previous Missions Impossible then you'll easily like this one. If you're an action fan in general then this film, should you choose to accept it, will entertain you like few other action films this summer will.

Your browser will crash in five seconds.

Grade:

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 -- Sicario: Day of the Soldado

  Sicario: Day of the Soldado is one of three movies I'm seeing this year – the others being Tomb Raider (reviewed back in March) and Venom (coming out in October) – not out of genuine excitement for them but more due to sheer curiosity. 2015's Sicario is a masterpiece of cinema that nicely wrapped up everything it set out to do. It's another one of those good movies that definitely didn't need a sequel, and yet here we are. So does Day of the Soldado honour the legacy of the first film while also being a good film in its own right? Let's take a look.

  Sicario 2 opens with human traffickers and drug cartels doing their thing along the Mexico-US border, except instead of just illegal migrants they're smuggling Islamic terrorists as well. CIAgent Matt Graver is tasked with striking back at the cartels by starting a war between them – the whole terrorism subplot is dropped rather quickly. For this he enlists the help of his old friend, Alejandro Gillick. It's a film that's just as brutal and badass as its predecessor but with a little more focus on action and less on moral dilemmas and the War on Drugs. There's somewhat less political and moral themes than the first film's although the theme of bureaucratic hypocrisy is still there. Overall, it's a story that isn't as engrossing as the first though it is enough to keep you entertained.

  There's also a problem with the movie's pacing. Within the last 30 minutes I kept thinking “is it over now?” not because I was bored but because there's several times where it looks like the movie could end at any moment. At least the ending we do get is pretty cool.

  Now for the characters. Emily Blunt's Kate Macer doesn't make a return nor is she given a proper replacement in Day of the Soldado. This is a real downer since Macer really gave the audience someone to latch onto in Sicario 1 as she experienced and reacted to the film's moral ambiguity firsthand. Instead Sicario 2 has the audience observing characters at arm's length which isn't as affective or thought-provoking. Josh Brolin returns as one of the film's two main characters, Matt Graver. His performance is more serious and less happy-go-lucky than in the first, but it's still quite good. This film has him faced with the likelihood of betrayal so it makes sense that perhaps he doesn't derive as much joy from his job as he did before. The other returning character is Benicio del Toro as Alejandro Gillick. His performance is spot on, very similar to the first film's. The only difference is that we see much more of him in the sequel and so the aura of mysteriousness he once possessed is a bit lacking this time around.

  Another mighty blow to fans of the first film is that Denis Villeneuve is no longer directing. Instead we've got some dude named Stefano Sollima and his direction is quite different. Gone is the picturesque composition and gone is the colour symbolism. Instead we've got more standard cinematography with some admittedly cool point-of-view shots from inside vehicles. At least that chilling theme song makes a return.

  And that's about all there is to say about Sicario: Day of the Soldado. It's a wholly unnecessary sequel that still manages to be sufficiently entertaining. It doesn't hold a candle to the original, but in spite of its flaws I still enjoyed it.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Solo: A Star Wars Story

  Another Star Wars movie already? But it's only been five months since the spectacle of mediocre dumbness that was Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. If Disney and Lucasfilm want moviegoers to spend their hard-earned doubloons on another Star Wars film so soon then they'd better bring their A-game. Or as Grand Moff Tarkin would say, “We're taking an awful risk, Kathleen Kennedy. This had better work.”

  Solo: A Star Wars Story follows a young Han Solo on his first heists in the galaxy's criminal underworld. Along the way he teams up with prisoner Chewbacca, smuggler Lando Calrissian, thief Tobias Beckett, and Han's former lover Qi'ra. It's a plot that's pretty dull, is somewhat predictable, and has lots of attempted jokes that don't always work. It seems that a lot of the scenes telegraphs their moves: they all begin with a character briefly mentioning some exposition about where they are and what's going on and right away you'll know “that thing he/she just off-handedly mentioned is definitely going to happen in the next ten minutes”. Lastly, there's an unacceptable amount of sequel-baiting for a movie that's supposed to be a self-contained chapter in an anthology series! Combine this with the fact that Alden Ehrenreich's contract is for three films – even though this first one is taking a beating at the box office – and you've got a pretty good example of what a cart before the horse looks like.

  But if you're a big fan of excessive fan service then you'll freakin' love Solo. Apparently everything important Han Solo-related thing in the Original Trilogy happened during this one adventure. You'll see the origin of every little thing you never really cared about from Han Solo's name to various classic (and some obscure) quotes. But this is all surface level reference stuff. Aside from Han's relationships with Lando and Chewbacca, there's no meaningful links to the original films or the Star Wars universe as a whole. If only they'd spent their creative energy on making this film worthwhile on its own.

  Speaking of which, Ehrenreich does an alright job in his performance as Han Solo, which largely sustains the whole film. Through him we see Solo change from underhanded idealist to cynical outlaw. But as good as Ehrenreich is here, he predictably doesn't hold up to the charisma of Harrison Ford. The same can be said of Donald Glover as Lando; good but not as good as Billy Dee Williams. Paul Bettany's performance as crime lord Dryden Vos is good, even if his character is somewhat generic and underutilized. Qi'ra is bland, not interesting at all. Oh yeah, and Chewbacca is now a savage brute who eats humans and rips people's arms off. Way to tarnish a classic character.

  It gets worse. There's this badass gang of speeder bike-riding pirates whose leader is later revealed to be a red-haired teenage girl with freckles. (Once you find out about this it is impossible to take her and her gang seriously.) There's an annoying droid who is an SJW (yes, even within the context of the Star Wars universe). And there's one character pointlessly brought back from the dead from a previous movie – it seems that nobody can let this person die peacefully.

  At least Woody Harrelson does a good job as Beckett.

  Solo's production value is about as good as most other Star Wars films: the sets look good, the music sounds exciting, and the CG effects are as frustratingly OK as ever. However, its scope is noticeably smaller which makes me wonder, by the Force, how the heck did this movie cost $250 million to make!? Not only is Solo the most expensive Star Wars movie, it's one of the most expensive movies period! No wonder this film is losing tons of money.

  So that's Solo: A Star Wars Story, an exceedingly average sci-fi action movie whose existence represents everything I dislike about today's Hollywood blockbusters: an obscenely-budgeted, unwanted cash-in with no heart made by uncreative studios who try shoving their politics in your face while also prematurely assuming that they'll be successful enough to crank out an unending, risk-free stream of sequels. Judged on its own merits Solo isn't terrible but it ends up being a lot like last year's The Last Jedi: by the standards of any old sci-fi action movie it's OK, it's just not a very good Star Wars movie.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Avengers: Infinity War

  Infinity War: could this film have had a more appropriate title? Infinite lead-up movies, infinite characters, infinite dollars. As with the first two Avengers movies, Infinity War ups the ante in terms of cast, action, and scope (though when you think about it Age of Ultron's stakes weren't that much higher than Avengers'). It truly is the most epic crossover since that time the King of the Hill characters cameoed in that episode of The Simpsons. But does it settle for sticking to that Marvel-money-machine formula that we've grown used to? Is it just another Marvel movie? Let's find out.

  Infinity War tells the story of Thanos's quest to attain all six of the infinity stones so that he can have unlimited power to re-balance the universe. In the process he takes on Earth's mightiest heroes, including the Guardians of the Galaxy, the Avengers, and various supporting heroes. To be honest, the first half of this 2.5 hour film does drag slowly as the disparate groups of characters each go on what's basically long road trips punctuated by chores. The phrase “how long is this going to take?” is spoken by various characters probably five or six times (not a good thing for an action movie). But once the plot threads start coming together, at around the half-way mark, Infinity War becomes an engrossing spectacle to behold.

  The tone of this film is also noticeably different than many recent Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films. While it can still be jokey at times, Infinity War becomes more and more serious and bleak as it goes on. One could say that it borrows a page from The Empire Strikes Back playbook. (Speaking of Star Wars, there's a big battle scene in Wakanda that closely resembles the Gungan battle scene in The Phantom Menace. Did anyone else notice that?) This more ominous tone is reflected in the musical score, this time more dramatic and sometimes even quieter than previous MCU soundtracks.

  And it's all capped off by the most awesome ending to any MCU movie yet. As Batman might say, it wasn't the ending we deserved, but the ending we needed.

  As mentioned earlier, the cast of Infinity War is huge... sometimes a little too huge. It's not as bad as X-Men: Apocalypse in this regard, but you can tell the writers were struggling to come up with stuff for everybody to do. It takes a while to get all the heroes' introductions out of the way, and like I said most of the heroes spend a decent amount of time simply travelling to far away locations. Moreover there are a particular handful of characters who pretty much do nothing in the movie (aside from getting some punches in during the battle scene). Having said all that, there are a couple brief surprise appearances from characters we haven't seen in years (which I won't spoil here).

  But the film's biggest success in the character department is in its villain, Thanos. MCU films have been hit-or-miss when it comes to badguys, but Thanos is a fascinating person to watch. He's not just evil for the sake of being evil; he believes that he's carrying out the lesser of two evils. He takes no joy in what he's doing and even has to go through some personal sacrifices to achieve his goals. Thanos is a well-rounded, complex character here, arguably the film's main character, and Josh Brolin – with some help from some spot-on special effects – does an excellent job of bringing him to life.

  So to answer my question from earlier, I'd say that Infinity War is somewhat more than one would expect from any old Marvel movie. While it does have the same level of action (which is brilliant, by the way) and somewhat basic plot, it can boast an impressive cast and an exceptionally interesting villain. Needless to say, a film like this wouldn't work on its own at all. If you haven't seen at least half of all MCU films then you're going to be utterly lost. But for everyone else, Avengers: Infinity War is essential viewing.

Grade:

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 -- Tomb Raider

  Movie adaptations of video games are notorious for their suckitude. Whether it's due to the games' improper interpretation onto the silver screen by people who don't understand what made the game fun to begin with, or if it's the fact that several hours of mood and storytelling have to be compressed into just two hours, films based on games don't score well with critics. But the recent wave of video game films – 2015's Agent 47, and 2016's Assassin's Creed and Warcraft – seem to be giving a second chance to fans of both movies and video games: people like me! So does Tomb Raider buck the trend or does it fall victim to the old Hollywood crap trap? Let's find out.

  Tomb Raider closely follows the plot (or so I'm told) of the 2013 game which served as a reboot of the series. Lara Croft is a gifted young woman and reluctant heir to the Croft estate who decides to undergo a perilous adventure to find out what led to her father's disappearance. It's a pretty standard plot with few surprises. Given that the Tomb Raider games range from supernaturally-driven to being grounded-in-reality, I didn't quite know which direction to expect from this movie. I won't spoil it for you, but I do think the route the filmmakers chose was handled well and left me guessing right up until the film's climax. What wasn't quite so well handled was the ending, which pulls the old sequel-bait trick via a whole lot of last-minute revelations.

  There's also a pre-credits scene where Lara buys some handguns from a pawnshop (which, given the UK's gun control laws, I believe is quite impossible). This scene only serves (1) as a reference to the games and (2) as trailer filler.

  Alicia Vikander does a pretty good job of bringing Lara Croft to life. Lara's character is somewhat bland but Vikander gives her just enough personality to keep her from being dull. Her English accent could've been a bit better, though. Vikander does deserve credit for performing in a very physically demanding role; Lara gets thrown, tossed, and smacked around a lot in Tomb Raider. And yet she hardly ever suffers any serious injuries. She also has the gift of being able to instantly solve weird puzzles she's never seen before. Other decent performances come from Dominic West and Daniel Wu as Richard Croft and Lu Ren respectively. The film's biggest not-so-great performance is from Walton Goggins as the main villain Mathias Vogel, though to be fair this may be more due to the way this character is written. Vogel is completely colourless and without any charisma whatsoever.

  The overall production of Tomb Raider leaves much to be desired. Computer-generated effects are everywhere; there's scarcely a scene after the first 15 minutes that doesn't have them. The environments are a mixed bag as well. There are some scenes that take place in interesting locations – for example, a foot chase across small boats on a busy pier – but other locations (mainly the tombs) are only lightly detailed and without much character.

  Another downer is that most of the fight scenes are presented through that really choppy, incomprehensible editing that 21^st century action movies frequently suffer from. I will never understand why directors are so hellbent on preventing their audiences from being able to tell what's going on when two people are fighting!

  And that's Tomb Raider, a thoroughly OK action-adventure film. It isn't as much dumb fun as the original starring Angelina Jolie, but its more serious tone is done well enough and Alicia Vikander is a worthy Lara Croft in her own right. In short, Tomb Raider is easily one of the better video game-to-movie adaptations out there. But, again, that's not saying much.

Grade:

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 -- Baby Driver

   Here I am with a review of a movie that's been out for two months, possibly the most late review I've ever written for a current movie. My bad. But after seeing how much ass Baby Driver kicks, I just had to let everybody know about it.

   Baby Driver is about Baby, a young getaway driver and music lover who's having trouble leaving the heist business all while caring for his foster father and trying to go on dates with a waitress named Debora. It's a movie that delivers the goods when it comes to interesting characters, good acting – especially from the likes of Jamie Foxx, Kevin Spacey, and Ansel Elgort – good humour, and many thrilling car chases that make extensive use of stunt driving rather than CG phoniness.

   Perhaps the most interesting thing about Baby Driver is its sound design and editing. There's lots of popular songs in this movie – good ones, too – but 99% of them are contextual to the plot; the songs the audience is hearing are the same songs that the characters are listening to. When a character stops listening to a song, so does the audience. (I say 99% because there's one scene where R.E.M.'s “New Orleans Instrumental No.1” plays seemingly from nowhere.) When a character listens to music through only one earbud, the song half-fades away. Not only that, but a lot of the movie's sound effects and actions – like gunshots and car horns – are often timed to the beat of the song that's playing at the moment. It's a very different way of making a movie sound, and it lends a lot to Baby Driver's overall identity.

   The film's visual editing is also very energetic and tight. With lots of revolving shots and long following shots, the camera moves quite a lot, making every scene feel lively. If it seems like I'm talking more about Baby Driver's production than its plot and story, that's only because it's these elements that make the movie feel so fresh.

   And that's about all I have to say about Baby Driver, a really good crime-action film with a killer soundtrack. Its story may be a case of style over substance, but I'm not complaining when the overall product is presented with this level of joy and creativity. If you're looking for something fun, then hop on board.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Wonder Woman

   Seventy-four years. It's really taken this long for Wonder Woman to have her own feature-length, theatrically released, live-action film? Batman's had nine and Superman's had eight (if we don't count Suicide Squad or The Lego Movie), but despite being considered one of DC Comics' Big Three, Diana Prince has had to wait until 2017 to finally have a starring role in a movie of her own. So was it worth the wait? Let's take a look!

   Wonder Woman tells us the origin of its titular hero from her formative years on the Island of Themyscira to her first exposure to mankind in Europe during the First World War. This makes for a pretty interesting and different origin story (though it might just feel that way because we haven't seen numerous on-screen re-imaginings of it). The overall story isn't terribly original, but it's done with a new character we only had a brief taste of in 2016's Batman v Superman, so I'm game. Plus it takes place in WWI, which is awesome. Wonder Woman's themes focus heavily on war, bringing to question the morality and consequences of armed conflict amidst the backdrop of one of the most morally-confusing wars in modern history. A good choice, I think. The film isn't as joylessly serious as the other films of the DCEU, but is still well-grounded with real life dilemmas. The whole war theme feels fresh for a superhero movie and it makes it stand out from any other DC film that I've ever seen – although there a couple moments where the film strays awfully close to a “hero the world needs, not the hero it deserves” line. There's also a couple moments where the dialogue feels a little too Care Bears-y.

   One thing I found to be a great relief was that Wonder Woman completely avoids progressive and SJW sentimentality. It doesn't shove toxic feminism down your throat. It doesn't make its audience members feel ashamed or guilty about anything. It doesn't tell you to hashtag BLM, revoke the 2^nd Amendment, impeach Trump, or any stupid crap like that. It's OK to like this movie regardless of your politics.

   Just don't expect a history lesson from watching this movie. Most obvious thing ever, I know, but as a student of history I was bothered by a few historical inconsistencies. For example, the film takes place in the Fall of 1918 but it suggests that the Germans still have a chance at holding out and prolonging the war. No mention is made of the German Revolution. Hydrogen is presented as a viable ingredient in mustard gas. And worst of all, Erich Ludendorff has no moustache! Disgraceful.

   Lots of people are going to be comparing Wonder Woman to 2011's Captain America: First Avenger so let's get this part out of the way now. While both movies have similar plots and even scenes (WW's climax partially rips off CA:FA's ending), the tone is pretty different. While First Avenger feels like a traditional superhero movie Wonder Woman feels more like a straight-up war film. WW deals with more relevant themes, is slightly more life-like (relatively speaking; these are superhero films after all), and has the main character actually fighting Germans, something Captain America never did in his film.

   Let's talk about the acting. It's rather good. Gal Gadot does a wonderful job of portraying the wonderful heroine with just the right mix of bravery, earnestness, and naivete. In the role of American (of course) spy hero Steve Trevor is Chris Pine, whose performance is just as good as you'd expect; no surprises. There's also Danny Huston as Colonel Stryker, I mean Colonel Stryker, I mean General Ludendorff, I mean Colonel Stryker. And lastly we have Elena Anaya as the diabolical Isabel Maru – AKA Dr Poison – who, while she isn't terribly interesting as a character, does have a cool appearance.

   And that's Wonder Woman, a capable superhero movie for both WW fans and non-WW fans alike. It manages to pull off the delicate balance of being both enjoyable and serious enough to both entertain you and make you think, something not easy to achieve for superhero films. It's easily the best – some might say the only good – movie of the DC Extended Universe so far, and as far as I'm concerned it went to the hero who deserved it most.

   And remember, just because you can't see the invisible jet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Rating:

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!

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!

Movie Review -- Ghost in the Shell

   So I went and saw a weird action movie starring Scarlett Johansson. No, I didn't just rewatch 2014's Lucy. I saw Ghost in the Shell, a sci-fi action flick that's gotten pretty mixed reviews so far. Before I begin, it may be helpful to mention that I know nothing at all about the source material, so I'm not going to be commenting on it's faithfulness to the original manga of the same name. I'm also not going to touch on the whole whitewashing controversy (mostly because I don't care). If you want to read about people ranting and raging over that topic, there's plenty of other websites you can try. But come on, this movie has ScarJo in a skin-tight bodysuit. It can't be that bad!

   Ghost in the Shell takes place in the year 2XXX in the sprawling city of XXXX-ville, in the Republic of XXXXX... in Asia somewhere. In this world most people have cybernetic enhancements, even to the point where experimentation with brains transplanted into completely artificial bodies are taking place. One such cyborg – the first of her kind – is Mira Killian, a counter-terrorism agent working for the Department of Defence. Her investigation of a botched assassination attempt leads her into a plot of corporate corruption as well as a path of self-discovery. And it's all presented in a typical cyberpunk tone that isn't too serious, but at the same time isn't over-the-top silly. This isn't exactly the most original plot in the world; you'll be able to tell where some of the threads are leading. Additionally, some of the movie's themes – what it means to be human, etc. – could have been developed a bit more. The story isn't awful, but it is Ghost in the Shell's biggest weakness.

   Thankfully, the movie's characters are interesting enough to hold the film up. Scarlett Johansson does a great job with her magnetic portrayal of Killian, the unsure protagonist longing to know more about her past. Pilou Asbæk is fun to watch as Killian's badass partner agent Batou. There's also a widowed lady character played by Kaori Momoi who, while she doesn't have many scenes, still manages to leave an undeniably potent impression. As with the film's themes, Ghost in the Shell doesn't fully flesh out every one of its characters, instead giving us several brief tastes of persons it would have been cool to learn more about.

   Ghost in the Shell's visual effects are very impressive. While it is obvious that the film uses CG, the effects are incorporated so seamlessly that spotting the seams is no easy task. (So just do what I did: give up looking for them and just enjoy the freakin' movie. OK?) This visual proficiency lends itself well to supporting how imaginative this film's world is. Many characters have cybernetic enhancements that you'd never have imagined seeing before. I was taken aback by a few of them that I wasn't expecting. The action scenes are pretty cool too. Fight scenes involving invisible people never felt so cool.

   But the biggest thing Ghost in the Shell has going for it is its visual style. Equal parts daytime-Blade Runner and 1980's neon sci-fi-fest, this film's spectacle is a sight to behold. From the costume/hairstyle design, to the bright, colourful lights, and futuristic metropolis – even the darkwave synth soundtrack – you won't find a more 80's sci-fi film this side of the new millenium. One glance at the cars shown in this flick is all the proof you need.

   I don't say this often, but I think the critics are wrong about this movie. Ghost in the Shell is a respectable action movie that gets more things right than wrong. Could it have been better in certain aspects? Yes, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it despite (or possibly because of) not being familiar with the source material. And if you're a fan of cyber-punk, futuristic, sci-fi films with a cool vision, then chances are you'll like it too.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Lucy (2014)

Sorry you're getting your weekly Anachronarchy post one day late; I was away this weekend. So since a weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Ghost in the Shell, is out I think it's an appropriate time to share my original thoughts on the last weird sci-fi action movie starring Scarlett Johansson, Lucy (2014). Will I go and see Ghost in the Shell? Maybe. We'll see. As for Lucy, I think it may have been better than I gave it credit for. Don't get me wrong, it's incredibly dumb, but at least it's fun. I wouldn't mind seeing it again sometime.

   It's time to review Lucy, the not-so-creatively-titled film based on an urban myth proven to be false over a decade ago. But I won't make a big deal out of that right now because it is possible to make an entertaining movie based on an urban legend. And is Lucy one of those films? Let's find out.

   The film revolves around Lucy, a young woman who is forced to become a drug mule when the South Korean mob implants a bag full of a new experimental drug in her abdomen. However the bag ruptures when the world's dumbest henchman kicks her in the belly (seriously dude, you had one job!), and the drugs cause her to access her brain's full capacity and track down the remaining drug quantities. Now this is a film that expects you to buy a lot of crazy stuff. Apparently, accessing just 25% of your brain makes you Superwoman, allowing you to have physically impossible abilities like telekinesis and omniscience. Accessing 100% of your brain turns you into God. Needless to say, when your main character is invincible some of the action scenes' tension is lost. It also doesn't help that she's surrounded by dumb people who don't bat an eye at suspicious people carrying guns. The ending sucks too.

   There's not much to say about the acting. It's just OK. Scarlett Johansson is actually really good in the first half hour or so, portraying a frightened hostage. But once Lucy gains her powers, she switches to emotionless robot mode for the film's remainder. Morgan Freeman plays the same role he plays in every movie: an important person who gives speeches (of course) and explains how complicated stuff works. For everyone else, the acting is pretty standard.

   The direction is really weird too. The first half hour of the film constantly and jarringly cuts back and forth between Lucy's story, Freeman giving a speech about brain stuff, and pointless stock footage of everything from tigers hunting, hurricanes, plants, and animals bumping uglies. Sometimes it's done to illustrate really obvious symbolism and it gets really irritating. But once Lucy starts using her head they just go away and never come back. However, something similar happens with the final climactic scene which is ridiculously over-the-top and runs for a bit too long. Maybe they were just trying to pad out the film's diminutive 89-minute run time. And to cap off this pseudo-intellectual crazyfest, we're given a one-line epilogue that makes absolutely no sense.

   For a movie that's based on brain power Lucy is dumb, but laughably so. Its exaggerated premise might drive some people crazy, but some people will have fun with it. If you didn't have the attention span to fully enjoy Limitless, then Lucy will suit your needs just fine. In short, it's somewhat entertaining. I mean, at least it's not Transformers 4, right?

Final rating: two stars out of five.

Movie Review - John Wick: Chapter 2

   Can we just take a moment to admire this movie's poster? I love it. I mean, there's countless film posters out there that show nothing but the main character's face and – just like one-word movie titles – tell you nothing of what the movie is about. But the poster for John Wick: Chapter 2 does it right. In addition to providing insight into the film's blend of humour and over-the-top action, the poster tells us everything we need to know about this movie: it has people in suits, it has lots of shooting, and everyone wants John Wick dead. And never have I been more thrilled to see a film deliver what it promises!

   John Wick: Chapter 2 follows John Wick, a former hitman who's brought back for one last job but soon finds himself getting more than he bargained for. I have to admit I have not seen the first John Wick (2014), though it is on my to-watch list. To be honest, I wish I had seen it earlier since this movie makes references to things and follows a culture/set of rules already established in the previous film. In fact, it took me a while to figure out what the title character was supposed to be (A spy? A supersoldier? A hitman?). While these thoughts were at the back of my mind the whole time, this didn't impede my ability to enjoy the film.

   Instead I was busy picking up my jaw from the mind-blowing hyper-active action scenes. Balls to the wall doesn't even begin to describe it! The action in John Wick 2 is so good. It's very fast paced, compressing its intensity almost to the breaking point, yet it still remains watchable. It goes for a slightly preposterous, over-the-top feel, which works well with the world this film plays in. The action scenes are brilliantly choreographed, which I think makes the hand-to-hand combat more fun to watch than the shootout parts. One minor complaint I have is that John Wick seems kind of invincible during the shootout parts, which robs those scenes of tension (mind you, he still has difficulty in taking out bad guys). They're still fun, though.

   John Wick 2 is a movie that oozes with style. Fancy-looking shots, bright lights, an electric soundtrack, and a trippy final action scene go a long way to really give this movie some soul. There's also a dog. Neat, huh?

   Speaking of characters, Keanu Reeves does a fantastic job of playing the title character, a man of few words who can still get the job done despite his reluctance to do so. The determination and intensity he brings to the role defies his 52 years. The side characters are also pretty interesting, especially the hobo/genius crime lord played by Lawrence Fishburne, the obsessed bodyguard played by Common, and the mute assassin/bodyguard chick played by Ruby Rose.

   And that's it, I guess. I wish I could have come up with more to say about John Wick: Chapter 2, but there really isn't much to say other than “go watch it”. This is one of the best, most energetic, and skillfully directed action movies I've seen in a long time. It helps if you've seen the first movie, but it isn't required for having a good time with this one. For fans of shoot-em-up movies it doesn't get much better than this.

Grade: