Transformers: Dark of the Moon - Review

You know what is the best thing about Transformers 3? It's that this officially marks the end of the Michael Bay-directed Transformers films! (If this was a video review, this is the time you would start hearing "The Messiah" playing) Hallelujah!!! Hallelujah!!! Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the 2007 film. It was a fun and crazy over-the-top sci-fi action film. That said, despite what the massive legions of over-enthusiastic fans would say, it was nothing more than a stupid and dopey action film. In other words, the flick was big, fun, and loud but moronic on pretty much all levels of filmmaking with the exception of it's impressive special effects. It was at best a guilty pleasure. The 2009 sequel, on the other hand, entitled Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was a disaster. An over-stuffed, over-plotted, poorly acted, horribly shot, and visually unimpressive nightmare of a film, Revenge of the Fallen stands as one of the worst sequels ever made and one of my personal worst films of all time. Even after two years I'm still spitting out it's horrible taste, so you can probably imagine that I wasn't exactly overjoyed for a third entry. Is it an upgrade over the last tragedy or is this one another broken and buggy mess of a movie?

Dark of the Moon takes place a few years after Revenge of the Fallen. Sam Witwicky (Shia Labeouf) has just recently graduated from college and is currently living with his new girlfriend Carly (Rosie Huntington-Whitely). Sam takes an entry level job with a major corporation, but finds himself having difficulty conforming to such a mundane job with his Autobot allies out defending the world. Meanwhile, trouble brews on the battlefront as the Decepticons discover a means to turn the tide of their battle with the Autobots. In the 1960s, an Autobot ship known as the Ark, carrying technology capable of rebuilding their home planet of Cybertron, crash landed on Earth's moon. Kept secret by the American government for over forty years, Decepticon leader Megatron learns of it's existance and aims to find it to rebuild their planet on Earth before Autobot commander Optimus Prime gets his hands on it and prevents Earth's destruction.

Alright, let's just get this out of the way right up front... is it as bad as Revenge of the Fallen? The answer... no, it's not as bad, but not by much. To it's credit, I didn't leave this one furious over it's poor quality like I did with ROTF, but then again I went into DOTM with really really really low expectations. I know that Michael Bay isn't out to create high art (believe me, I get that), and he's made a few films that I've really enjoyed. Movies like The Rock, Armaggeddon, and the first Transformers are, in my opinion, some of the better "pure-fun, guilty pleasure, popcorn flicks" out there. That said, Bay's disregard for the basic tenants of filmmaking are so obvious that his films, enjoyable or otherwise, come off almost as amateur as a first year student film if it had a budget of 200 million dollars. Terms like plot, character development, depth, tripod, steadicam, subtlty, have virtually no place in a Michael Bay directed film. In spite of all those criticisms... none of that would bother me much for this kind of movie had it not been so over-the-top annoying and cheesy... but that's exactly what this movie is!

Michael Bay has one particular talent that I don't think gets discussed enough... the ability to get good actors give bad performances. While Shia Labeouf has shown that he's not that bad of an actor, his choice in roles could really use some work. I can't say that I blame him for his choices... being in huge blockbuster franchises like Transformers or Indiana Jones have gotten the guy some major exposure and probably some nice paychecks too. Unfortunately, the Transformers movies are going to hang over him like a sign that reads "Don't Take Me Seriously!" In this, he has his moments and can still hold is own in the action scenes, but his tendency to overact has seriously kicked into high gear. He spends most of the movie looking paranoid and shouts what seemed like half of his lines. I really hope Shia gets some better roles soon, before his Transformers image is permanently typecast onto him.

One of the most talked about casting changes was the replacement of Megan Fox for newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whiteley. A lot of the movie's criticism has been directed toward her acting ability. In my opinion, she's not terribly awful, but just really bland. It doesn't help that her character is nothing more than a generic love interest and occasional damsel-in-distress, but her lack of any acting experience is obvious. An actress with more training could have easily brought out some emotion to the character. That said, with most of this movie's cast either playing a neverending game of "Who Can Overact The Most?", she gave a more grounded performance that was at least not painfully annoying. That's probably why I didn't hate her as much as most people did, but I can't deny that her performance doesn't really work. I suppose you have to make due with what you've got.

For the rest of the cast... this is where the whole "Michael Bay makes good actors give bad performances" notion is most apparent. John Turturro returns as Agent Simmons, once again soiling an otherwise solid filmography with another horrendously annoying Transformers performance. Veteran actor John Malkovich shows up in a mostly-pointless role as Sam's boss, Bruce Brazos, only to give a painfully annoying over-the-top performance. Speaking of painfully annoying and over-the-top performances, there's also Frances McDormand as Director of US Defense, Charlotte Mearing. She's right up there with John Malkovich in terms of over-the-top and annoying performances. Julie White and Kevin Dunn (Sam's parents), show up again to give their trademark over-the-top and unfunny schtick again... though they fortunately only had about one or two scenes (gotta appreciate the little things.)

You know what is the worst thing about the Transformers movies? Aside for those two Autobot twins from ROTF (honestly, I still can't get over just how bad that movie turned out), it's the fact that the actual Transformers play second fiddle to the human characters. For a movie that's called Transformers... that's a huge problem! It wouldn't bother me much if these movies had gripping storylines with well-written human characters that would compliment the Autobot Vs Decepticon storyline.... BUT THEY DON'T!!! I'm not even coming at this as some nostalgia-fueled fanboy. On the contrary, I never cared for the Transformers growing up. I didn't watch the show, I didn't collect the toys, and I never read the comics. I was born in 87, so I missed the Transformers generation (had I been born a few years earlier, I'm sure I would have loved them). Still, a series that is as simple and straightforward as good robots fighting bad robots shouldn't be this cluttered.

Have you noticed that the first movie was mainly a story about Shia Labeouf trying to get laid? The second movie... well, that plot was so cluttered and messy that I was barely able to comprehend what it was about. From what I remember, it had something to do with Sam getting laid in college with the Transformers story being treated more as a subplot. The third is about Sam trying to make it in the working world with the Transformers occasionally popping in to say hi. I wasn't expecting greatness or anything like that from a Transformers movie, but don't think a generic good robots vs bad robots story is too much to ask for! At the very least, can't the writers cool it with the stupid government conspiracies crap! It made no sense in the second movie about how the world governmentshad been covering up the Transformers existance for so long or how they managed to keep the whole final battle from the first movie under wraps. This whole movie centers around the the space race from the 60s being nothing more than a response to finding a Tranformer that crash landed on the moon. The movie even got Buzz Aldrin to make a cameo... no seriously, the real Buzz Aldrin is in this movie! I don't know whether to be impressed for the filmmakers attempt at bringing some authenticity to the concept or annoyed to see a genuine icon appearing in such a stupid movie. EESH!

This is the part where I'm supposed to say something along the lines of, "At least the action and special effects are good." Well, I have to admit, this is where the movie kind of works... "kind of" being the key phrase in that sentence. I remember being seriously impressed by the cgi in the first movie, calling it some of the best ever. Watching the robot designs in this one... well, let's just say they haven't gotten better with age. That might be because there's not much diversity in the designs, particularly in the Decepticons. Most of them look so alike, that you can't tell one another apart except for the close ups. As for whether they look convincing... let's say they look flawed yet decent. Still, they do look like a lot of work was put into them, and despite their imperfections, it is still some of the more impressive cgi out there.

The action is still hit and miss, but fortunately it hits more often than it misses. The finale is where it especially works. It's still generic Michael Bay action, if you've seen any one of his movies, you know what to expect. Explosions, guns, explosions, lens flares, explosions, shots of the sunset, explosions, helicopters, explosions, and tanks... the standard. Did I mention there were explosions? I just wish it didn't take so long with the tedious Shia Laboeuf plot to get to the action. Unfortunaely like ROTF, the said plot didn't spend enough time developing enough of the said supporting characters, so you feel no real emotional connection to anyone in the final battle. The 3D effects were surprisingly very well done, making this movie one of the few movies were the 3D actually improved on the overall moviegoing experience. It's not up there with the Avatar or Tron Legacy 3D effects, but it does it's job well. It's your standard Michael Bay action fare... crazy and erratic but for what it is, it's not too shabby.

Odds are if you're seeing a Michael Bay movie, you're probably expecting little more than crazy action. If that's all your looking for, then yeah, you'll probably leave more or less satisfied. It is an improvement over the second but it still lacks the fun factor from the original. It's been in theatres forever now, so you've already decided when/if you are going to see it or have seen it already. Granted, this movie is best seen on the big screen, but still I'm going to say you can probably skip it unless you really really really want to check it out.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Captain America: The First Avenger - Review

Out of all the Marvel comic movies, I think Captain America has probably had the toughest time transitioning into film. It's not hard to see why... a patriot-themed superhero comes off as a bit campy, especially in a time where America isn't exactly seen in a particularly positive light these days. The character actually been adapted to film 4 times before. The first of which was a 1944 serial. It was decent for it's time I suppose, but like most serieals from the time period, it hasn't aged well. 1979 saw two forgettable made-for-TV adaptations that made little to no impact on audiences. Of course, the most infamous adaptation was the 1990 film, simply called Captain America. This low budget abomination went straight to video and is often considered one of the worst superhero films ever made. So yeah, the Captain's film history hasn't exactly been stellar, that's for sure. Is director Joe Johnston's film adaptation, Captain America: The First Avenger, the one to change all that?

This World War II themed superhero flick begins in the city of Brooklyn in the year 1942. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is a young man who wants nothing more than to serve his country as a soldier in the US Army. However, due to his lack of physical strength, his asthma, and general poor health, he is deemed unfit for military service. That all changes when rogers meets Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a military scientist who after recognizing Rogers' perseverance and good nature, selects him as a candidate for his super soldier program. The experimental procedure would change Rogers from an asthmatic weakling to super-strengthened fighter and the prime American soldier. The experiment is a success, but when the program is sabotaged by Nazi spies, the government shuts down plans to create a super-powered army and instead turns Rogers into a costumed character known as Captain America. He is then treated as a gimmick, paraded around USO shows selling bonds and boosting soldier morale. Not content with simply being a sideshow attraction, Rogers takes to the battlefield as Captain America and stumbles onto a heinous Nazi organization known as Hydra, led by an equally powerful Nazi known as the Red Skull. With Hydra becoming stronger everyday and the Skull's hunger for world domination increasing, Captain America becomes the world's only chance of stopping them and saving the world.

Eep! I hate it when I give away that much plot information, but every time I tried to cut it off, I felt like I was selling this movie short. This movie really has a lot going on in it, both as it's own film and it's role in the continuity of the Marvel movie universe. It's a superhero film, it's a WWII epic, it's a prelude to the Avengers, and it's a prequel to Iron Man, Thor, and The Incredible Hulk. What's funny about all that though is that the story itself is essentially a straightforward comic book plot, the basic good-natured hero vs evil villain, albeit with patriotic overtones. Still, almost everything in this movie works... like really well. The storyline is engaging, the characters are fun, and the action is awesome. It's one of those movies that feels as if I shouldn't have liked it as much as I did... but everything comes together so nicely. Seriously, there's next to nothing in this flick that doesn't work.

Probably the biggest success comes from the perfect casting of nearly every character in the movie. Chris Evans (The Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movies) tones down his usual snarky attitude and rather plays the Captain with a likable and rateable demeanor. Unlike many disturbed (Iron Man), troubled (Spider-Man), or borderline psychotic superheroes (Batman), Captain America is one of the more straightforward comic books heroes. He's a good natured, friendly, and overall decent guy who loves his country. This doesn't mean he's stale or underdeveloped, in fact I'd say his good guy demeanor actually makes him one of the more refreshing superheroes in recent memory. Sure, one might still see him as little more than a glorified boy scout, but I personally think there's more to the character. He starts off as a weak man who becomes a national hero that's based less on his physical ability and more on his passionate yet not arrogant patriotism. If nothing else, he's an incredibly fun character that's a blast to watch.

Speaking of fun characters that are a blast to watch, the movie also features Hugo Weaving as the film's central villain, Johann Schmidt aka The Red Skull. The depiction of the character bares many similarities to his comic book counterpart, the best of which is his spot on appearance. One element of the Skull's backstory that was cleverly reinvented for the movie was this. He starts off as a prominent Nazi official (like the comic) and head of Hydra, the Nazi advanced weapon manufacturing division. Soon after the movie starts, Hydra succeeds from Nazi affiliation due to the fact that Hitler consider Schmidt to be too evil... Wow! Overall, I found Weaving to be incredibly entertaining as the red faced villain, finding a perfect balance between camp and seriousness. There are also great supporting performances from Haylee Atwell as the female lead Peggy Carter, Dominic Cooper as Howard Stark (Iron Man's father), Stanley Tucci is great as always as the scientist Dr. Abraham Erskine, as is Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Chester Phillips. Overall, it's a great cast!

Of course for any summer blockbuster, especially a superhero movie, one would expect some great action scenes and special effects. If that's all you come to this movie expecting to see, then I can all but guarantee you'll leave happy. Aside from some a few dodgy cgi shots, I'd go as far to call the action scenes perfect... or at least as great as one can expect. There's the usual hero vs villain fights, but there's also a Bourne style on-foot chase scenes (minus the erratic camera) and some well shot WWII battle scenes. Like I said, there were a few cgi shots that could have been rendered a little better. The most apparent one would have to be Chris Evans pre-experimented body, digitally made shorter and weaker. At times it looks real, but more often that not it looked like a digital effect. Granted those are nitpicks that didn't take me out of the movie. It delivered on all levels as an over-the-top summer blockbuster, a War film, and a fun superhero flick.

If Captain America was simply a fun summer blockbuster with cool action and fun characters, I probably would have been fine with that. Apparently, that wasn't enough for the filmmakers and director Joe Johnston. In addition to the action and characters, this movie features top notch production design, amazing costumes, a great musical score from Alan Silvestri, and an engaging story. It's one of the few superhero films to find a great balance between camp and seriousness while never loosing track of basic solid filmmaking. The 40s setting gave the filmmakers a great opportunity to play with some fun retro themes. It kind of reminded me of Joe Johnston's earlier and very underrated WWII superhero film, The Rocketeer. The sets compliment the 40s vibes and gives the movie a really stellar look. I also dug the tinted old-film inspired color correction, again aiding in it's retro appeal.

My favorite element of the production design had to be the costumes. All of the outfits are extremely well made and seem to be authentic, but it's the main hero's costume that really did it for me. Captain America's costume is about as perfect as you can get. It honors it's source material, updates it appropriately, and appears to be a fully functional costume for it's actor. In other words, Evans is able to move around and pull off the action scenes without looking stiff or robotic. Honestly, if this movie doesn't have the best superhero costumes of all time, it's definitely in the top 5. It's right up there with Spider-Man and Iron Man.

It's so refreshing to see a great superhero film made by passionate filmmakers, especially coming off of the disappointing Green Lantern. It goes to show that when you have a great director, cast, and team all pouring their heart and soul into any movie, especially one as difficult to adapt as Captain America, the results can be awesome. Let me just make this clear... do NOT miss this movie! It's awesome! Not quite Dark Knight or Spider-Man 2 awesome, but definitely my favorite out of the connected Marvel movies (Cap, Thor, Iron Man, and The Increidble Hulk) and somewhere in my Top 10 favorite superhero movies. Now bring on the Avengers!

My Score: 4.5 Out of 5!

Thoughts On The Teaser For The Amazing Spider-Man

Let's try something a little different today... instead of a movie review, how about a movie trailer review. Today, the teaser trailer for the newest Spider-Man movie, entitled "The Amazing Spider-Man," was released. If you don't know, this flick is a complete series reboot with absolutely no connection to the previous Spidey flicks directed by Sam Raimi and starring Tobey Maguire. Instead, this movie will be directed by Marc Webb (500 Days of Summer) and stars Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) as Peter Parker/Spider-Man. The main difference is that this movie will take place during entirely during Parker's high school years, when he first gets bit by the radioactive spider responsible for making him super-powered.

Here's the teaser... My review after the jump.



My thoughts... I've been skeptical about this movie ever since I first heard about it. I enjoy Sam Raimi's take on the Spider-Man series (yes, I even kind of liked the third one) and was actually looking forward to a fourth entry... but that got scrapped when Sam Raimi had creative differences with the studio. This teaser actually gives credence to something I've been concerned about since this movie was announced... that it would either be too similar to Twilight or a mediocre teen sci-fi show on the CW. Eep!

The Good:
I will say that I'm glad that they're taking this movie in a different direction than the previous movies, simply because I like to see a different filmmaker try different things. The apparent darker and more dramatic style is just fine with me. It also looks like that it's trying to keep it character-driven and less action-focused, which in theory could be a good thing (don't get me wrong, action is important too though). Plus, the high school setting doesn't bother me too much seeing as many Spidey comics took place during his teenage years anyways. It's also nice to see them actually using Gwen Stacey as the love interest in her proper setting (ie, not shoe-horned into the story for the convenience of a love triangle a la Spider-Man 3). The cast is quite good as well, Andrew Garfield as Spidey, Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben, Sally Field as Aunt May, Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy, and Rhys Ifans as The Lizard... yeah I have no problem with this cast. So yeah, there's barely enough to keep me hopeful.

The Bad:
Eeeesh... this teaser reeks of Twilight and WB bullshit. I really don't mind the high school setting, but I'm hoping and praying that this doesn't end up being a half-rate love story with flat dialogue, stale performances, questionable morals, and shitty abstinence messages. I might have been able to somewhat take solace in all that had the trailer featured some cool action or neat displays of superpowers, but nope! Instead, we get a weird first-person cg running segment that looks like a cut scene out from a mediocre video game. The cgi in that 30 seconds is pretty awful. I know I know... it's just a teaser trailer and they've got a whole year to fix up the effects (which they probably will), but it's just not boasting me with much confidence right now. Not to mention, we only barely get a glimpse of Parker in the costume. Granted, that's not a huge concern but it's just kind of a bummer.

Overall:
Yeah, this trailer isn't exactly doing it for me. Yes, it's only a teaser and it's still way too soon to judge, but if Sony is going to get the nay-sayers to come around for this flick, they'll have to do much better than this.

Green Lantern - Review

One thing that I found a bit interesting about the Green Lantern movie is that it represents something of a minor turning point for Warner Bros. Since 2001, the studio has had the luxury of distributing the Harry Potter movies, a stream of popular, well-made, and lucrative blockbusters that were all but guaranteed to be mega-hits. Now with Potter series on it's final legs, Warner Bros has been on the lookout for a new blockbuster franchise to take it's Place. So the first up to bat is Green Lantern, a movie based on the long running DC comic book. As the first live action feature based on the series, expectations were high. Is this Warner's newest multi-million dollar franchise or is it back to the drawing board.

Green Lantern stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a cocky test pilot facing some personal demons from his past. One night, he comes across an alien named Abin Sur who crash landed on Earth. Abin Sur is a member of an intergalactic peace keeping alliance known as the Green Lantern Corp, who came to Earth in search of someone to take his place on the Lantern Corp before he dies. He bestows Jordan with his power ring, an item that bestows the wearer with the power to turn thought into reality. Jordan learns to master his new found powers right as a near-unstoppable force called Parrallax makes it's way to Earth with it's sights set on planetary destruction.

I do enjoy comic books and superhero movies, but I was never that big of a fan of Green Lantern. I've never had anything against the series or the character, it was just never my cup of tea. It seemed like a cool idea though, and if nothing else I admired it from afar... enough at least to look forward to seeing this movie. I only mention this so you know that when I say the movie is disappointing, I'm not coming at this as an upset fanboy. All I know of the character is the basic format, the general mythos, and most of the main characters. As far as the nit-picky details as for how well it follows it's source material... I'm not the one to ask about that. It's just a very mediocre sci-fi action film with more than it's share of flaws.

One thing that got me excited for this flick was that it was being directed by Martin Campbell. This was the filmmaker behind some solid and fun action films including Vertical Limit and The Mask of Zorro. For me though, his work on the 007 movies are his great accomplishment, directing two of the franchise's best entries, Casino Royale and Goldeneye. Unfortunately, Campbell's direction is ultimately what killed this movie. It seemed like he had no interest on set in what he was directing. What we ultimately get is a string of scenes featuring lost actors, sub par special effects, uninspired action, and weak humor. Granted the finale had it's moments, but the rest was about as bland as it gets. It's basically like he was directing on autopilot the whole time. What a disappointment...

One could theorize that the direction was so poor due in part for Campbell not being satisfied with the script... and I really wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, because the writing is awful! The worst part about it that it includes bits and pieces of a quality flick, but cops out on almost every bit of promise it had. The mythos behind the character is very cool... a plot about legion of super powered aliens who protect the universe has all kinds of potential. First problem though, they neglect many aspects of the Green Lantern Corps to focus almost exclusively on the personality-drained Hal Jordan. On top of his character having more in common with Tom Cruise in Top Gun, there's just nothing that hasn't been done before. He receives a great power, nearly budges from the responsibility,and then overcomes it to save the day in the end... haven't seen that a million times before. Meanwhile the far more interesting characters like the other Green Lanterns or the villainous Hector Hammond (played by Peter Sarsgaard) are left underutilized and underdeveloped. As for the rest of the movie... be prepared for lots of exposition, massive plot holes, unfunny jokes, and cliche after cliche.

Now, let's focus on the casting... oh the casting. Ryan Reynolds stars in the title role as Hal Jordan aka Green Lantern. Let's make one thing clear... I like Ryan Reynolds. He's a talented actor with good range, solid comic timing, and the ability to take on different roles. If you don't believe me on that, go watch Buried and see for yourself. His depiction of Hal Jordan, however, is just all wrong. It's partly due to the weak script and direction, but I can't totally let Reynolds off the hook. For the most part, he looks like he's in a daze or just lost. Blake Lively plays Jordan's love interest Carol Ferris. I don't have much to say about her other than that she has absolutely no range whatever in this. Peter Saarsgard as Hector Hammond was actually the only one who comes close to salvaging this movie. His character is largely irrelevant the plot and totally underdeveloped, but his character arc almost works and even though his acting at times borders on campy, he was the only one who actually showed some personality. Not much else to say about the casting other than that it usually doesn't work.

I might have been willing to forgive some of Green Lantern's many problems if the film's technical aspects were better, but sadly they're not. Let's start with the effects... in short, they're not that good. First off is the The Green Lantern costume. It is created not through fabrics or linens, but through cgi. The logic was that the outfit is created by energy, and that a traditional costume wouldn't give it the animated or alien look that was desired. In theory that makes sense, but the costume's cgi looked totally unfinished and unconvincing. Many times, it looked like Reynolds head was just floating around, especially in the scenes set in space. The rest of the action was for the most part just meh. The finale had it's moments, but the rest are ridiculously stupid. The introductory scene for Jordan is a generic dogfight between Jordan and a military drone in a scene that is all to reminiscent of Top Gun. Hell, I expected to start hearing Highway To The Danger Zone while watching it. If that's not bad enough, halfway through there's a scene where Jordan saves a failing helicopter by creating a giant toy car ramp with his ring... even for comic book standards, that is corny. That could actually be said for pretty much every scene in the flick. It's too campy to take seriously but not nearly fun enough to enjoy on an ironic level.

The worst part about Green Lantern is that between the decades of comic storylines and mythos, a previously successful director, and a promising cast, this could have been something really good. It's not the worst comic book movie ever, and I wouldn't go as far to call it the disaster it's being made out to be, but it just made too many mistakes for me to give it a recommendation. If you haven't seen it yet, don't bother.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Super 8 - Review

Super 8 is one of those movies that I can't help but chuckle at. It's not a bad movie, it's just that it tries so incredibly hard to strike at the nostalgia of those who grew up in the 80s and early 90s that it comes off as less of a movie and more of a laughably over passionate love letter to my generation's childhood. While one could make a reasonable argument that originality is overrated, or that the current generation probably wouldn't recognize most of Super 8's movie references, there is definitely something to say about why a credible filmmaker like J.J. Abrams would feel compelled to rip off nearly every Spielbergian trick and cliche in the book. Yeah, I know this was produced by Spielberg, but nonetheless I stand by my opinion. Still, I guess if you had to rip off a filmmaker, there are worse choices than Spielberg. Is the movie a new summer classic or a forgettable dud?

Super 8 centers around a group of kids living in a small Ohio town in 1979. One summer night, they sneak out to film a short movie by an old train station. In the midst of the filming, they witness a catastrophic train accident when a car drives onto the railroad tracks and causes it to derail. Soon afterward, they realize that the train belonged to the US Air Force and was carrying a creature unlike anything they've ever seen. Now, with a giant alien wrecking havoc around town, the kids are forced to take action and stop it.

Like I was saying, Super 8 tries... boy does it try hard. To me, it comes off as this movie that feels if it includes references to every Spielberg movie it can, that it will go on to be this timeless summer classic. To be fair though, many great movies are mainly homages. Star Wars, for instance, was basically a salute to sci-fi serials of the 50s. Then there's Indiana Jones... an homage to adventure serials of the 30s. Ridley Scott's Alien was essentially a big budget B-Movie from the 50s. The list goes on. The main difference between classics like that and Super 8 is this... Super 8 intentionally targets your nostalgia and goes out of it's way to remind you of the classics. Sure the other films mentioned may have been nostalgic, but they had their own unique touch to separate them from their inspirations. Super 8 has scenes that wholeheartedly rip off nearly every movie directed or produced by Spielberg. There are scenes taken from Jaws, War of the Worlds, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Gremlins, The Goonies, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, even Schindler's List. Not mention there are small tributes to non-Spielberg filmmakers like John Carpenter and George Romero. Though hands down the most prevalent tribute is ET, going out of it's way to include a plot with an alien and even scenes that were almost completely remade from the classic. As a result, Super 8 comes off simply as a nostalgic piece with little originality and practically no lasting value.

Despite those criticisms, Super 8 does a lot of thing right. The first of which is the acting. Super 8 boasts one of the better child casts I've seen in quite a while. In fact, it's one of the rare occasions where the kids outshine the adults. Not so much because the adults are bad actors, but simply that the kids are more engaging characters. They have diverse personalities, fun characteristics, and some memorable comedic moments. I won't critique all of them, but I will say that Super 8 will likely be remembered as the star-making vehicle for actors' Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney.

Probably the most frustrating thing about Super 8, though, is the fact that the story doesn't take advantage of it's child characters as well as it could have. As I mentioned before, Super 8 has a promising script with an intriguing concept and fun characters, but unfortunately it also has a boatload of problems. It switches every so often between the main plot with the kids, and two subplots - one of which involves a government conspiracy involving the alien (a la ET) and another involving Joe's (the main character) neglectful father coming to grips with his recently deceased wife (a la... too many Spielberg movies to name).

The story has a great first act... with a solid setup, promising exposition, and one of the best train derailment scenes I've ever seen. The second act is when the movie starts feeling cluttered and overstuffed, struggling to balance it's multiple stories. By the time the third act rolls around, not much has changed. The finale is appropriately exciting, but it's also predictable as hell. Plus, when the alien's appearance is finally revealed... it's pretty ho-hum. Not awful but a minor letdown after the great buildup. Though I do have to mention the hilarious post-credit scene. That alone makes Super 8 worth seeing.

From a technical side, Super 8 works. The special effects are appropriately adequate, the cinematography is decent, and it had enough visual flair to keep me interested. As I mentioned, the train derailment scene is very cool, arguably the best train accident ever depicted on screen. You've also got some suspenseful and exciting scenes with the alien reigning chaos on the town. While the camerawork was overall decent, many of the shots had multiple lens flares that got really distracting. Plus, there's the less-than-stellar appearance of the alien, as I mentioned before. Overall, it works but aside from the train scene, I can't think of much that will be especially memorable.

What's frustrating about Super 8 is that it makes as many wrong choices as it does right choices. It's just when it work... it really works, but when it doesn't... it falls pretty hard. In the end, I think the pros outweigh the cons enough to see it once in theatres, but with all of the film's positive qualities, it should have been much better. It's too bad... this could have been a new classic. Still worth a watch though.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

X-Men: First Class - Review

Alright! The verdict is finally in! The X-Men series has finally gotten the shot in the arm it's needed! 20th Century Fox finally listened to the fans and once again made an effort to create an X-Men movie with a creative director, compelling story, charismatic actors, and a great respect for the source material. Make no mistake, the title doesn't lie. X-Men First Class is indeed a first class movie and it's one hell of a breath of fresh air. That's the short version... here's the more detailed review.

X-Men: First Class is a prequel/reboot of the X-Men series, taking place mostly in the 1960s and focuses on the rise of the X-Men and the friendship between Magneto and Professor X. The year is 1963, nuclear tensions between the US and Soviet Union are hot, and the next stages of evolution have begin and people with mutant powers begin to appear. The telepathic Charles Xavier aka Professor X (James McAvoy) just received his doctorate for his thesis on genetic mutation. He goes on a search for other mutants around the world and there meets Erik Lensherr aka Magneto (Michael Fassbender). Lensherr, a holocaust survivor and mutant with the ability to control metal, is on a relentless search to find and kill Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), the mutant who is responsible for killing his mother. Despite a difference in ideals and beliefs, the two unite in order to assemble a team of mutants, discover the secrets of mutation, and to neutralize the dangerous threats made by Shaw and his band of evil mutants.

The X-Men movies started off strongly with Bryan Singer's 2000 adaptation of the long-running comic. The movie, simply known as X-Men, was a clever action movie with great action, an intriguing and thought-provoking premise, and good characters brought down by some plot-holes, a missteps in character development, and a so-so third act. The sequel, X2: X-Men United, was even better, giving us more of what worked in the first and less of what didn't. It had a better story, superior action, and delved more into it's characters and the themes of mutation. The third movie, X-Men: The Last Stand, was directed by Brett Ratner and is generally considered a disappointment. While it wasn't as good as the first two, I didn't dislike it nearly as much as most people did. If nothing else, it was a fun sci-fi action movie, even if the lack of respect it had for story, characters, and it's source material was pretty appalling. Not the worst ever, but not that great. The fourth movie, a prequel/spin-off called X-Men Origins: Wolverine, on the other hand was pretty much awful! Not only was it a complete failure in terms of story or respect for the comic, but it did a less-than-stellar job in the action department as well. So the series had two good movies, one average movie, and one awful movie. Now with X-Men: First Class, you can add another great movie to the lineup.

I admit that when I first heard of the movie being developed, my expectations were low. After Wolverine, I had lost hope that the series would return to it's superior roots. So, as you can imagine, seeing the series' return to greatness is a definite breath of fresh air. I'm not totally sure if it's a prequel, a reboot, or both. It includes references to the first two movies and usually appears to stay in continuity, but between some contradictions to X3 and Wolverine, it seems like First Class is aiming to stick to the story from the first two while ignoring the previous two. So I guess it's both a prequel and a reboot... or a prerebootquel maybe?

First Class has a lot going for it, but by far it's biggest accomplishment is it's cast. First up is James McAvoy as Charles Xavier aka Professor X. Patrick Stewart was so well cast in the last few X-Men movies, seeing a new actor in the character's shoes (this movie takes place before the character becomes a paraplegic) was going to be tough to accept. McAvoy admittedly does a solid job here, bringing the same likeable personality and charisma to the character, while doing a few things differently. Here, Xavier is younger and less mature, and while his motives and goals are the same, he comes off as somewhat naive and overzealous though still commendable. Xavier believes in the human race, and aims for a peaceful alliance between humans and mutants.

By far the most commendable performance has to be Michael Fassbender as Magneto. This is the first X-Men movie to really showcase the character of Magneto. His depiction in the last couple of movies was good don't get me wrong, but I felt like there was a lot to his personality and backstory that could have been explored further. Unlike Xavier, Magneto embraces a more militant view of mutant prosperity... one which would see the destruction of humanity and the domination of mutant-kind. While his methods may be evil, his logic is hard to argue with. He believes mutants to be the superior race and aims inspires courage and pride among his fellow mutants who are either ashamed or discriminated against. Also unlike Xavier, Magneto comes from a more gritty and experienced background. While Xavier lived a sheltered and wealthy life, Magneto saw his mother shot to death right in front of him while he was a boy living in Nazi-occupied Poland. Fassbender really brings a great dynamic to Magneto, embodying the charismatic and strong-willed character he was in the comics.

For me to give a proper critique to the rest of the actors would take far too long, so I'll just give a brief rundown of a few of the main supporting characters. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh off her Oscar-nominated role in Winter's Bone, appears as a younger version of Mystique (the blue-skinned shape shifiting mutant from the previous movies). I'll just say this, Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique shows abundant promise as one of Hollywood's most promising young actors. Kevin Bacon hams it up a bit as the villainous Sebastian Shaw. While one might say that his performance comes off as a bit campy in comparison to the dead-serious villain performances from the previous flicks, you can't deny that his character is a hell of a lot of fun to watch. The other stand-out performance would have to go to Nicholas Hoult as Hank McCoy aka Beast. Not too much to say about him other than that he did a good job. The only performance that didn't really do it for me would have to be January Jones as Emma Frost. I guess she was never a particularly interesting character, but nonetheless Jones was little more than eye candy. Finally, Hugh Jackman has a funny cameo as Wolverine... which was a welcome scene. Overall, I have to say that this was an very well-cast movie.

The artistic style of X-Men: First Class both hits and misses. I applaud director Matthew Vaughn for taking the film in a more a lighter though still very serious direction. The color scheme and cinematography has more colorful and less gritty tone, embracing it's comic book roots without descending into camp territory. The art design is nice to look at, the make-up is well done, the costumes are neat, and camerawork has a nice look to it. The cgi, however, doesn't always impress. Some of it was well done, but there were only a few instances where the overall less-than-stellar imagery didn't look like a computer effect. I'm surprised the movie looked as good as it did considering the rushed production schedule, and I imagine that if the movie had another month or two in development, the cgi would have been far better.

Finally, let's quickly address the story. I've already addressed bits and pieces about it so I won't dwell on it too much. Overall, it works pretty well. I love how this movie focuses on what made the X-Men stories so engaging in the first place... the characters. The way it dwells on Xavier and Magneto's friendship and alliance worked to it's advantage. I also really dug the way it explored exactly what it means to be a mutant and the discrimination that comes with it. All that being said, I do have a few issues with the script. Like all the X-Men movies, the cast of characters is so huge that many of them don't receive as much development as others. It's not like X3 this time, where it seemed like Ratner tried to force as many mutant cameos as he could fit in the 2 hour runtime, but it's still a noticeable though minor issue. One other thing is the Cuban Missle Crisis plot. I liked that they threw in a real-world event to give the movie a little more relatability, but having the whole event revealed to be little more than a scheme from the evil mutants came off as a little far fetched. Overall, the story works... nothing Oscar-worthy but a commendable script as far as superhero movies go.

So yeah... this is one you definitely will not want to miss. Even if you don't like comic book movies, X-Men: First Class has something I think everyone can enjoy. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

The Hangover Part II - Review

Hmmm... I'm beginning to see a pattern developing with the summer movie releases. First, the season started off with a bang with the awesome action blockbuster Thor. Next was the very funny Bridesmaids, the movie with a solid chance of becoming the breakout comedy of the summer. Following that was Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, the incredibly disappointing and unnecessary cash-in sequel to a hit action movie. Now, with The Hangover Part II, we have the incredibly disappointing and unnecessary cash-in sequel to a hit comedy. Does this mean that the next two major releases will be awesome??? I sure hope so, because next week is X-Men First Class, and that franchise is dying for greatness again (Please Don't Suck!) But that won't be until next week... for now, let's just look at the current culprit to steal your money, The Hangover Part II.

The Hangover Part II sees the return of the crew known as The Wolf Pack. There's the straight-laced Stu (Ed Helms), the hip and cool Phil (Bradley Cooper), and the incredibly immature Alan (Zach Galifianakis.) It's two years after the infamous Vegas incident from the first movie, and they've all moved on since then. Stu is days away from getting married to the woman of his dreams, with the wedding being held in Thailand. Two days before the wedding, the group comes together in Thailand... and it all begins again. Seemingly out of nowhere, the group finds themselves in Bangkok, waking up in a run down hotel room with no memory of the night before. To make matters worse, Teddy, the brother of the bride, (who was hanging out with guys) goes missing, forcing the gang to retrace their steps and find him.

Before I start, I have to say this. Making a sequel is no easy task, especially a sequel to a comedy. Here's a little challenge for you: Name at least five sequels to a comedy that were either as good or better than their predecessors. Can you think of five? It's tough isn't it? Making a decent sequel to an action movie or a horror film, while challenging, usually stand a better chance than their comedic brethren. Comedies seldom work twice. After all, a joke isn't nearly as funny if you know the punchline. I only mention all of this because, in spite of the daunting challenge of sequel making, there was little to no effort put into The Hangover II. I've heard of recycling jokes, but this goes beyond that. I admit that I didn't totally get the messiah-like praise the first one got, but nonetheless it was a damn funny movie that definitely deserved better than a crumby half-rate sequel.

The plot is exactly the same same, the characters are (mostly) the same, the development is the same, and most of the jokes... they're the same too. What made the first Hangover work so well was the sense of unpredictability and randomness it boasted. It had all these amazing setups and left the viewer genuinely interested in how it would all unfold. Usually whenever something was revealed, it was goofy and hilarious... great comic premise! However, that premise does not work when you are able to predict those said jokes. Seriously, almost every gag or reveal was merely a slightly modified take on a gag from the first movie. This is some of the most lazy and ineffective comic screenwriting I've ever seen. It's like the writers took the script from the first and replaced Vegas with Bangkok, found a baby with found a monkey, missing a tooth with missing a finger, and... you get the idea.

The humor in the first was crude but generally goofy and fun... about as harmless as a mature comedy can get. The Hangover Part II actually caught me off guard by it's darker tone and more hateful sense of humor. When you have a fish-out-of-water story set in a foreign country, the first concern would be that it comes off as racially insensitive or prejudiced. There are a couple of scenes that might raise an eyebrow or two, including a scene concerning a group of monks in a Buddhist temple, but for the most part it's actually not too bad on the racial front. There is, however, a scene that dwells on a transsexual stripper that includes a rather unfunny joke that is taken further than it really should have been. I admit that I got a handful of chuckles from the flick, but nothing that I'll be remembering a few days from now.

I feel bad for the cast being in this sequel. Galifianakis, Cooper, and Helms are clearly a talented crew whose efforts are totally wasted. Make no mistake, the actors do a serviceable job, and try to make the most out of lame content. Oh sure, sometimes they go a little over the top, but most of those occurrences could have been fixed with some better editing. Any laugh I did get out of this piece of crap was only because of the cast. It's not their fault that the movie sucks, this is purely the fault of a weak script.

In short, The Hangover Part II pretty much sucks. The few minor laughs I did get out of the flick don't justify the 12 dollars you'll be spending on the movie ticket. If you absolutely must see it, wait to rent it on DVD.

My Score: 2 out of 5!