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 -- 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 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 -- Glass

   Did you know that Unbreakable (2000) was always meant to be a trilogy? Yup. That was how it was intended from day one. It definitely needed two sequels, right? Right? No, I'm being sarcastic! Unbreakable's first sequel – if you can even call it that – was Split (2016), a good movie, but it had nothing to do with the original. And the second sequel Glass – the subject of today's review – is an awkward marriage of the two. I'm going to have to look at Glass on its own since I haven't seen Unbreakable, so how does it fare in the eyes of this fractionally informed viewer? Let's find out.

   Glass is about the characters from both of the previous two films and despite having not seen Unbreakable I was able to pick up on and follow things alright. After a fight to free some hostages/keep some human sacrifices the Horde and the Overseer are imprisoned in a mental institution along with Mr. Glass. There they are treated by Dr. Ellie Staple who tries convincing them – and the world – that they don't really possess superpowers. It's a story that dissects and deconstructs how superhero movies and comic books work. It seems that every five minutes or so people talk about comic book tropes and cliches and what they think superheroes mean to people. These discussions can be interesting at first but I can't help but think they've overstayed their welcome by the time they keep showing up even during the final action scene. As for the tone, Glass is largely devoid of the tension and thrills that Split had. The plot moves along nonchalantly, trying to slowly build into action, which leads me to my biggest complaint about Glass: it's kind of boring. Pretty much the entire second act is people sitting around and talking; nothing happens! This isn't helped by the fact that probably 3/4 of this film takes place at one location, making it feel like a prison movie. And to add insult to injury, the second act teases us with a cool location that we don't even get to see! What a load.

   What doesn't suck is the acting; the three main characters are all very well portrayed. We've got Samuel L. Jackson as the enigmatic Mr. Glass, Bruce Willis as the in-over-his-head vigilante Overseer, and James McAvoy as the Horde, i.e. that guy with two dozen personalities. The problem comes from the fact that the story doesn't always know what to do with them. For example, Bruce Willis is gone for large portions of the film. Also, remember how terrifying it was seeing Kevin Wendell Crumb become the Beast in Split? Remember how it only happened twice in that film? Well, in this one it happens probably ten or eleven times and after a while it starts to look silly. And then there's Dr. Staple played by a rather one-note Sarah Paulson whose job it is to hold the same facial expression throughout the entire film. Also, why does the lady playing Mr. Glass's mother look like she's the same age as him?

   Lastly, I have to discuss the direction by M. Night Shyamalan. I've already mentioned how he handled Glass' tone and as for the cinematography it's pretty much what you'd expect of the man. If you like extreme closeups then you'll freakin' love Glass. There's also plenty of subjective camera angles as well as some dynamic shots centred on the characters which looks cool at first but also makes the action scenes hard to watch. Shyamalan also makes his customary cameo. So yeah, there's that.

   And that's Glass, a thoroughly “meh” superhero film that tries to be really different and smart but with mixed success which could've been so much more. One could say that it's a return-to-mediocre-form for M. Night Shyamalan. But if you ask me there's two words that perfectly sum up Glass: half empty.

Grade:

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.

2018 Year in Review

The year is almost over and I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the films that came out in 2018. To clarify, I'm talking about the films that I saw in 2018 (I can't fairly comment on ones I haven't seen!). I saw 14 new movies in theatres this year (one less than last year) and whereas in 2017 I ended up watching a bunch of good ones, this year I saw a whole lot of OK ones and a few disappointing ones. To illustrate, look at the average stars I gave per film: 3.8 for 2017 and 3.4 for 2018. While this isn't the lowest stars average I've awarded in a year – that distinction goes to 2011, 2.9 stars on average – it does indicate that there were a lot of films I reviewed this year that were around three to three-and-a-half. It just seems that there were fewer standout films that I ended up seeing; less spectacular ones and less awful ones. But today I'm going to give a brief overview about the movies this year that did stand out to me.

Best movie: Mission Impossible: Fallout

In a movie series that only seems to get better with age, Fallout is a blast. Loaded with those high-octane action scenes that make you hold your breath, this sixth Mission Impossible film maintains the same level of intensity as at least its two predecessors did. Tom Cruise turns in another great performance as Ethan Hunt, the fearless IMF agent who is basically Captain America without the shield. Costars Simon Pegg, Henry Cavill, Rebecca Ferguson, and Ving Rhames are great additions as well and the story nicely ties in with that of previous instalments. The only negative I can say is that Fallout doesn't always ace it when it goes for emotional moments. That complaint aside, it's still a fine action film.

Runner up: Avengers: Infinity War

Worst movie: Solo: A Star Wars Story

Don't get me wrong, Solo isn't a terrible movie but it is a very dull and forgettable one that I have no cause to ever watch again. Imagine The Last Jedi but without all the cool stuff and also without all the (most) aggravating stuff, and that's more-or-less Solo in a nutshell. A lacklustre story (that is barely self-contained), dull characters, and Hollywood's inescapable political agenda make this a film that's difficult to admire in spite of its jaw-dropping budget. It's clear that Disney didn't make this film because they were artistically compelled to, not because they had an epic story to share or something new to offer. They put it out simply because they could – or rather they had to considering all the money that was sunk into this black hole of a project. For the first time in years a December will go by without a new Star Wars movie being released and considering the current state of the franchise I think that might be a good thing.

Runner up: Venom

Most disappointing movie: Venom

A Venom movie is not an idea that was doomed from the start. Who wouldn't want to see one of Spider-Man's most dangerous and ruthless foes given life on the big screen? Two months later, and I feel as if I still haven't seen such a thing. What we ended up with was an edited-for-TV buddy action movie in which Venom isn't even a villain! But when you've got a film that has a generic script full of plot holes, an odd choice of lead actor, a conflicting tone, and dismal special effects I guess you've gotta take what you can get. The film is certainly watchable and if you've never heard of the Venom character before then you probably won't be too offended by its missteps. But from where I'm sitting Venom was not the film it should've been. It should have had an R rating, a grittier tone, and (preferably) some relation to the comics it's based on. What a shame.

Runner up: The Girl in the Spider's Web

Previous Years' Rundown

You know, just for the heck of it I'm going to give you a quick rundown of how I viewed each years' movies since 2011 (the year I began writing film reviews). Here's a brief list of the previous seven years' best movies, most disappointing movies, and worst movies (or in the case of those marked with an *asterisk, the least-good movie I saw that year).

Year	# films reviewed	Average stars /5	Best	Worst	Most Disappointing
2011	7	2.9	Captain America: First Avenger	30 Minutes or Less	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
2012	10	3.7	Looper	* The Bourne Legacy	The Dark Knight Rises
2013	10	3.1	Gravity	After Earth	Thor: The Dark World
2014	13	3.4	Interstellar	Transformers: Age of Extinction	Amazing Spider-Man 2
2015	13	3.8	Mad Max: Fury Road	Project Almanac	Halo: Nightfall
2016	15	3.1	The Revenant	God's Not Dead 2	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
2017	15	3.8	Blade Runner 2049	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales	Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

Movie Review -- Bohemian Rhapsody

  So I finally got around to watching Bohemian Rhapsody and to my great disappointment it wasn't a two-hour music video for the song of the same name. Talk about false advertising! Instead it's a biopic about Queen and its lead singer Freddie Mercury. So can this movie spread its wings and breakthru or will it bite the dust? Let's check it out.

  So yeah, as stated above the film follows Mercury from his days as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport all the way to his performance with Queen at 1985's Live Aid at Wembley Stadium. And yeah that's about all there is to say about the plot. It covers a few major events of the band's life up to 1985, detailing the origins of their most popular songs interspersed with Mercury's relationships and sexuality. It is, regrettably, a lot of surface-level stuff. I didn't know all that much about Queen before seeing this film and after seeing it I still don't feel as if I know all that much about them.

  Apparently there's also a lot of historical inaccuracies to Bohemian Rhapsody. For example, in real life Freddie Mercury didn't learn that he had HIV until after Live Aid, not before. Also Queen never broke up, which means that Live Aid wasn't really a reunion gig as the movie suggests. If you're like me and you're not overly familiar with Queen's history then these stone cold crazy glitches shouldn't bother you too much (I had to look these up). I can accept biopics often require little changes to real life stories in order to streamline events into movie script material. But if you're a big fan of Queen then you may be disappointed that the band's history was oversimplified to this degree. Plus Bohemian Rhapsody suffers from that old familiar problem of a lot of musical biographies: anyone who's familiar at all with the subject already knows how the story is going to end.

  In the director's chair we've got Brian Singer and his work here is kind of a mixed bag. One can't deny how well-shot, energetic, and fun the concert scenes are but on the other hand there are a bunch of scenes that overstay their welcome. For example the movie's climax is Queen's performance at Live Aid and this legendary 21-minute set is almost fully recreated (I think they only left out “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” and “We Will Rock You”). But as good as this scene is, I couldn't help but wonder is it over yet?

  As one might expect of a Queen movie the main character is Freddie Mercury, played by Rami Malek. Malek does a fantastic job with his somewhat weird performance and it definitely grows on you after a while, as Freddie becomes more comfortable with himself as the film goes on. The other characters are alright although I suspect that some of them fall prey to the aforementioned oversimplification, especially with regards to the film's antagonist.

  So that's Bohemian Rhapsody, an ordinary musical biopic that, while lacking in staying power, does manage to have some scenes of genuine fun. If you're already a hardcore Queen fan then you may end up going slightly mad at this one vision. For everyone else who's thinking about seeing it, don't stop now because it will rock you.

Grade: