Thor: The Dark World (2013)

THOR: THE DARK WORLD (2013)

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely, Don Payne, and Robert Rodat

Producers: Victoria Alonso, Louis D'Esposito, Alan Fine, Nigel Gostelow, Craig Kyle, and Stan Lee

Editors: Dan Lebental and Wyatt Smith

Cinematography: Kramer Morgenthau

Music: Brian Tyler

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, and Christopher Eccleston

Runtime: 1 hour 52 minutes

Rating: PG-13 (intense sci-fi action & violence, some suggestive content)

Genre: Superhero, Action, Fantasy

Release Date: November 8, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: It's really not necessary to see Thor or even The Avengers before watching the movie. Everything is fairly easy to pick up.

Intro: Sorry for not posting more often. I'm in my first quarter of college and it's been a little crazy adjusting to things. Anyway, it's easy to convince me to watch Marvel movies. Though they are not the pinnacle of filmmaking excellence, I always find them entertaining and fun. This one was no different. Thor: The Dark World does exactly what it is intended to do: thrill and entertain as a superhero movie. While it isn't perfect, it is saved by Loki, its humor, action, and visuals.

Plot: Years ago, the Dark Elves sought to bring darkness to the universe, but Asgard and other worlds stopped them before they could dominate. 5,000 years later, after they are all presumed dead, the Elves begin to resurrect under their leader Malekith. When Earth, Asgard, and 7 other worlds in the universe are threatened by the elves, it is up to Thor (Hemsworth), his earth girlfriend Jane (Portman) and his evil brother Loki (Hiddleston) to save everyone.

Things People May Find Objectionable: There's a lot of violence and a couple of mild swear words, but that's pretty much it. It has the same level of content as any other superhero movie.

What was Good:

     -Directing/Cinematography: The movie looks good. There's no denying that. It's a really good piece of eye candy. I was pretty impressed with the directing too. You can actually tell what is going on with the action sequences, which is always a plus with action movies.

     -Action/Suspense: Plenty of action to go around. This is another thing Marvel never disappoints with. It's definitely an exciting movie.

     -Humor: The movie had some seriously funny moments in it! The wittiness was one of the things that made it so enjoyable. It seems like Marvel movies are getting progressively funnier. This is a good thing, in my opinion. The funnier a movie is, the more enjoyable it is.

The poster looks good, but it's almost exactly the same as the Iron Man 3
poster. Lack of creativity, eh Marvel?

     -Loki: Tom Hiddleston as Loki pretty much steals the show. He is in all the memorable scenes of the movie and provides great comic relief, but is also very good in the dramatic scenes. Pretty much any scene with him is better than all of the scenes without him. Not that those other scenes are bad, it's just Loki makes them better. I would love to see a Loki-centric movie. I think it would work really well.

     -Special Effects: Really great. Marvel never disappoints with the visuals. It's hard to distinguish between actual sets and the CGI, aside from the whole alien world thing. It was really convincing. It's a testament to how good CGI has become these days.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Script: Not a great script, but it was ok. The comedic parts were really well-written, but sometimes the dramatic lines seemed a little weak and cliché. It doesn't ruin the movie by any measure, but it feels like the script could've been stronger. You'd think they could do that between 5 screenwriters.

      -Characters: Except for Loki and somewhat Thor, the characters were al relatively flat. The side characters were just that: on the side. Not much attention was paid to their characters.

      -Pacing: The movie moves very quickly. Hardly ever is there a dull moment, but sometimes it seems if as the movie moves a little too fast. It felt like they kind of glazed over some storylines in favor of moving the plot along. My question to the filmmakers is, why include some storylines at all if you're just going to skim over them? I felt like the movie might have functioned better if there wasn't so much involvement with Earth. I think it would've functioned just fine as solely a space opera.

Worth Noting:

     -Story: Look, it's formula, same as pretty much all superhero movies and definitely all Marvel movies. You're not going to get anything groundbreaking story-wise. As far as the way it's told, there's not too many obvious plot holes, though some things are not as well-explained as they should have been. Sometimes you'll get a "wait, what?" moment, but it doesn't make the story hard to understand. It's just some small details that go unexplained.

The Verdict: Thor: The Dark World is a perfectly good and entertaining superhero movie, but not a lot more. It has great visuals, a lot of action, and a surprisingly good performance by Tom Hiddleston, but has cliché writing and weird pacing. I'd almost be willing to say it was as good if not better than Iron Man 3. Anyway, I would recommend this one for a fun and entertaining movie. If you like Marvel's other stuff, you should like this one.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

The World's End (2013) Review

THE WORLD'S END (2013)
Director: Edgar Wright

Writers: Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright

Producers: James Biddle, Liza Chasin, Eric Fellner, Nira Park, and Tim Bevan

Editor: Paul Machliss

Cinematography: Bill Pope

Music: Steven Price

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, and Martin Freeman

Best Credit: Mark Donovan and Ricky Champ as "Big Ugly Bastards"

Runtime: 1 hour 49 minutes

Rating: R (pervasive language and sexual references)

Genre: Comedy, Action, Sci-Fi

Release Date: August 23, 2013

Intro: I've been disappointed a lot with movies this summer. Maybe I'm just getting tired of the same old summer blockbuster formulas and overdone CGI, but it has seemed like a lot of this summer's movies are kind of the same. So when I saw a British comedy getting 90% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, I knew this is one I wanted to see, especially since I've heard good things about Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's stuff. I wasn't disappointed. The World's End kind of has it all. First and foremost, it's funny, but it is also very well-written, acted, and directed and makes for a really good and entertaining movie.

Plot: Back in 1990, a group of high school friends led by Gary King (Pegg) attempted the "golden mile" in their hometown of Newton-Haven, in which they would drink at 12 different bars, the last of which is the World's End. They didn't quite make it, so 23 years later, Gary wants to try again. He approaches his reluctant companions from that night and gets them to come back to Newton-Haven. However, they soon realize that a lot of things aren't quite right with the town.

Things People May Find Objectionable: The biggest thing here is swearing. There is quite a bit of language. Otherwise, there's some violence and gore, but I've seen worse in PG-13 movies. If you take out the language, this one would've easily been rated PG-13 instead of R.

What was Good:

     -Humor: Definitely a strong point of the movie. It isn't hilarious right off the bat, but once it gets going, it's really funny. In a day and age where not many quality comedies are produced, The World's End is really refreshing with its smart humor. I think it's fairly safe to say that it's the summer's funniest movie. The nice thing is that for the most part, the movie doesn't rely on cheap pop culture references for laughs, so it will probably be able to retain its humor longer than your average comedy.

     -Story: I thought the story was very well-written and pretty well-thought-out. What impressed me the most is how seamlessly they were able to blend genres. Also, the attention to detail is very nice, as a lot of stuff comes back later in the movie or makes more sense after seeing the plot unfold. I thought the ending probably could've been a little better, but overall the story was very interesting and well-told. 

     -Directing/Cinematography: I really liked the directing in this one. The shots were interesting and the movie was very visual. It's cool to see a well-directed comedy. That doesn't seem to happen all that often, as it seems a lot of the best directors opt to work on dramas or action movies instead. 

     -Script: Wow! An actually well-written summer movie! Who'da thought? Sadly, it seems like a rarity nowadays, so it makes me even more impressed when I see good writing in a movie. The attention to detail is great and the script and story are both very smart.

Simon Pegg's stuck-in-the-90's character, Gary King, holding
a map of the "Golden Mile" the characters attempt

     -Acting: The acting is one of the main reasons the movie worked as well as it did. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are both great, and their supporting cast of Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan are really good at backing them up. As one of my friends mentioned, the line delivery is part of the reason some of the lines were so funny, which says a lot about the actors.

     -Special Effects: This isn't a movie you'd expect to have first rate special effects, but they are actually pretty good. They are used relatively sparingly, they look pretty convincing, and above all they work.

Worth Noting:
     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: This was good for both Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's characters, as the characters are refreshingly well-developed. However, the other characters seem a little thin and somewhat forgotten by the screenwriters at times. It works, but sometimes you wonder what happened to a certain character and start wondering if anyone cares about them anymore.

     -Action/Suspense: The movie actually has a nice action side to it, even though it's not as wall-to-wall with its action as something like Iron Man 3. It's exciting, but the focus is the humor.

     -Originality: The movie was very original in that it essentially blended 3 genres. It took a typical sci-fi plot, a typical action plot, and a typical buddy comedy plot and mashed them together. This kind of blending is hard to pull off, but the filmmakers do it very, very well.

     -Intelligence: Unlike a lot of summer movies, especially comedies, the movie is very smart. The writers know what they're doing and have obviously thought a lot of the plot and the jokes through. It's really nice to see this for once. 

The Verdict: The World's End is either the best or tied for the best (with Star Trek: Into Darkness) movie I've seen this summer. It has just about everything. It's funny and it also has good acting, directing, writing, and a healthy dose of action and character development. I would definitely recommend seeing this one. Though it takes a little bit to get going, once it does, it's a really fun, funny, and enjoyable movie.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Kick-Ass 2 (2013) Review

KICK-ASS 2
Director: Jeff Wadlow

Writer: Jeff Wadlow

Producers: Trevor Duke-Moretz, Pierre Lagrange, Mark Millar, Stephen Marks, John Romita, Claudia Schiffer, Brad Pitt, and Matthew Vaughn

Editor: Eddie Hamilton

Cinematography: Tim Maurice-Jones

Music: Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson

Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Chloe Grace Moretz, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Lindy Booth, Olga Kurkulina and Jim Carrey

Best Credit: Cinna as "Eisenhower." Cinna is a dog.

Runtime: 1 hour 43 minutes

Rating: R (strong violence, pervasive language, sex content, brief nudity)

Genre: Action, Crime, Superhero, Comedy

Release Date: August 16, 2013

Before Watching the Movie: You should probably see the first Kick-Ass movie before watching this one, as a lot of references are made to things that happen in it. If you don't have time, it would be a good idea to read a spoiler-filled synopsis of the first one.

Intro: So I start college in about a month. While I have a long summer, I have to contend with having a lot of friends leave and fewer people to hang out. So I got excited when the people who are actually still here want to hang out. So we decided to see a movie. I was kind of hoping to see either Elysium or The World's End, but since we'd seen Kick-Ass 1 at a recent movie night, my friends chose to see this. I enjoyed the first one, so I went in went in with an open mind. Kick-Ass 2 proves that lightning can't strike twice, as it fails to deliver in the same areas its predecessor is able to pull off, as it has excessive violence and backstories and character development that seem unnecessary.

Plot: After the events of the first Kick-Ass movie, Kick-Ass/Dave (Taylor-Johnson) has started a movement for everyday citizens to become masked vigilantes. His counterpart, Hit-Girl/Mindy (Moretz) has begun high school and is having problems fitting in. Meanwhile, grieving millionaire and former sidekick of Kick-Ass, Red Mist (Mintz-Plasse), has decided to avenge his father and become the world's first supervillain.

Things People May Find Objectionable: Oh God, where to begin. There's really a bit of everything in this one: craptons of swearing, craptons of violence and gore, and one scene with brief nudity. This is definitely not one to take kids to. If you're uncomfortable with violence and swearing, don't see this one.

What was Good:

     -Humor: The movie was at least good in this department. The first part of the movie is pretty funny and there are some really funny moments. However, as the movie becomes more dark and serious, it begins to fail and becomes a lot less fun to watch. The movie probably would've functioned best as purely a comedy. I felt this way when watching Kick-Ass 1 as well, but it was actually able to pull it off.

     -Acting: I gotta say, the acting was pretty good. I usually have a bias against child actors in their performances, but Chloe Grace Moretz is really pretty good as Hit-Girl/Mindy. The other actors do a good job as well. I mean, no Oscar performances here, but the acting is solid.

     -Directing/Cinematography: It was alright, I guess. I really liked the choices of color for all the characters and sets. It kept it very interesting. Also, the action sequences weren't all that bad, as you can tell what's going on for the most part. It wasn't Kubrick or Hitchcock-level directing by any measure, but it wasn't bad.

What Could Have Been Better:

     -Pacing: The movie gets off to a good start, but from the middle to the end, it drags quite a bit. It felt much longer than it actually was while watching it. I was surprised looking on IMDb and seeing how short it actually was. I could've sworn this thing was 2 and a half hours even though it was just under 2. 

Something the filmmakers should really learn

     -Violence: Any movie with this amount of violence walks the line between something insanely fun and watchable like the stuff Quentin Tarantino is famous for and something that just seems like it has excessive and unnecessary amounts of it and becomes old. While it's predecessor managed to walk the line fairly well, Kick-Ass 2 falls on the other side. While some violence was fine, it seemed like the movie just had an excessive and gratuitous amount. After a while, it got to the point where it got old and I got tired of watching it.

     -Story: I really liked the basic premise of the movie and its predecessor. It's a great, refreshing take on the superhero genre. If they had stuck with just the whole average guy becoming a superhero part of the story, I think the story would've been better. At times, I kept thinking, "Did you guys really have to go there?" or "Did we really have to see that?" or "Is this really necessary?" A lot of the plot, especially the emotional, character moments seemed unnecessary. I mean, they fit the plot ok, it just seems like they could've told the same story without them.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: I got really tired of the movie's attempts at this, really fast. The character development and emotional parts of the movie really dragged on, and a lot of it I felt was unnecessary to the story. I'm not sure if I cared about the characters or not, but I got tired of the attempts to develop them.

     -Script: Like pretty much the whole movie, the script started out ok and then went downhill when things begin to get serious. The only bits of good writing were in the opening like 20 minutes when the movie was still trying to do comedy.

The Verdict: Though it is entertaining at times, especially with its humor, Kick-Ass 2 fails to pull off what Kick-Ass 1 was able to. A movie should be fun to watch unless it's trying to make a statement by being hard to watch. The movie really isn't that fun to watch, nor does it make any profound statements. This movie doesn't have enough redeeming qualities to make me recommend it. If you're interested in movies like Kick-Ass 2, I recommend watching Kick-Ass 1 or something by Tarantino instead.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.

Pacific Rim (2013) Review

PACIFIC RIM (2013) REVIEW
Director: Guillermo Del Toro

Writers: Travis Beacham and Guillermo Del Toro

Producers: Callum Greene, Jon Jashni, Mary Parent, and Thomas Tull

Editors: Peter Amundson and John Gilroy

Cinematography: Guillermo Navarro

Music: Ramin Djawadi

Starring: Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, and Burn Gorman

Best Credit: David Fox as "Old Man on Beach"

Runtime: 2 hours 12 minutes
Rating: PG-13 (sci-fi violence, brief language)

Genre: Sci-Fi, Monster Movies, Action

Release Date: July 12, 2013

Intro: I'm going to be honest here. I wanted to see this movie for one reason and one reason only: director Guillermo Del Toro. I loved the Hellboy movies and Pan's Labyrinth has become a favorite of mine. I love his inventiveness as far as monsters is concerned and his movies I've seen have been pretty compelling. Pacific Rim isn't a perfect movie by any stretch, as it's pretty cliché-ridden and the writing is weak, but the movie never fails to entertain. It has interesting visuals, good special effects, plenty of action, and a nice dose of humor and it is a nice homage to classic monster movies.

Plot: One day, a giant monster named a Kaiju rises out of the bottom of the ocean and attacks and destroys San Francisco. After a few other attacks, the humans choose to fight back and create giant robots called Jaegers to take on the Kaiju. When the Kaiju begin getting stronger and more numerous, the Jaegers begin to be less and less useful. Earth's last defense is Hong Kong, where the best pilots out there are recruited to defend the planet from the Kaiju.

Things People May Find “Objectionable”: The biggest thing is violenc. However, most of the violence is between giant monsters and giant robots and not between two people. Still, there's a lot of it and this isn't one I'd recommend showing young kids. Other than that, there's some mild swearing, but nothing much and it isn't pervasive at all, and there's one more f-bomb contained in this review than there is in the movie.

What was Good:

     -Directing: The visuals were all pretty spectacular. Del Toro made a lot of good choices when it came to what colors were used where. Visually, the movie looks great. Also, I love Del Toro's imagination when it comes to dreaming up monsters like the Kaiju. This is seen in other movies of his like the two Hellboy movies and Pan's Labyrinth.

     -Music/Score: I liked the score. It seemed kind of similar to other blockbuster scores I've heard in the recent past, but I still liked it and it added to the movie.

     -Action/Suspense: Plenty of action to go around. It felt to me like I was watching an upscale Godzilla movie. There were giant monsters fighting each other and, as expected, it was pretty exciting.

     -Humor: Though the movie wasn't a comedy by any stretch, it was fairly tongue-in-cheek and there was a good dose of humor throughout. It was a refreshing aspect of the movie. Usually movies like Pacific Rim run into trouble because they take themselves too seriously.

Pretty accurate description of the experience of watching Pacific Rim.

     -Special Effects: Definitely a strong part of the movie and where most of the budget probably went. And it showed. All the monsters looked impressively realistic. Then again, special effects are almost always an essential part of any large-scale production like Pacific Rim.

     -Acting: Decent acting. I think all the lead actors did an adequate job, even though there were no Oscar-winning performances to be found. It was interesting seeing Charlie Day of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia doing a semi-serious role, since he's known for comedy, but he does a good job.
     -Homage to Godzilla Movies: It's pretty clear that Pacific Rim is a love letter to old Godzilla movies. It feels like a Godzilla movie while watching it because the plot structure and action sequences all seemed like the types of things you would find in one. As a classic monster movie fan, I really enjoyed this about the movie.

What Could Have Been Better:
     -Cinematography: Though the movie looked very good, I must critique the cinematography. During a lot of the fight scenes, the cuts were too fast and the camera zoomed in too close and things happened so fast that it sometimes became difficult to figure out what was going on. This is maybe just me being picky, but when there's an action sequence, I like to know what is going on, even if the filmmakers are trying to convey the insanity of the situation. I think comprehension should come before anything else when piecing together an action scene.

     -Story: The story made sense and there were no obvious plot holes, but it really wasn't very strong. It was very cliché-ridden, and it took a lot of predictable turns. It just seemed like a story that's already been told many times before and it didn't seem that special.

     -Script: Really not a great script. The lines were pretty cheesy and cliché. It's pretty obvious that writing isn't the forte of this movie.

See, I'm not the only one who thought it was like a
Godzilla movie.

     -Characters/Emotional Involvement: The characters were pretty flat and weren't the emphasis of the movie. Look, the emphasis of this movie was giant robots and monsters fighting, not good, round characters. Just don't go into this movie expecting a lot of character development because you aren't going to get it.

Worth Noting:

     -Intelligence: This is just a movie where you walk in, shut your mind off, and enjoy. It doesn't require much brainpower to enjoy.
     -Originality: It's an homage to old Godzilla movies, so it was using a lot of the same clichés and scenarios from those, so I can forgive it somewhat. Having said that, the writing is very cliché and nothing new or fresh.

The Verdict: Pacific Rim was definitely a lot of fun and entertaining if nothing else. The writing was really not the best, but the action, visuals, and tribute to classic monster movies make up for it. The movie will not go down in history as one of the greatest ever made and it may end up as a flop for Warner Brothers. Even so, it's damn entertaining and I think worth a watch, especially if you're a fan of Godzilla movies.

Liking my reviews? Like my Facebook page.