Reviews

As a Canadian, I prefer American films the most but their action movie scene by the 2000s started to really dip in quality. Usually Hong Kong will pick up the slack but you'd be surprised what comes out of France.

As with any film with Luc Besson's fingerprints, there is more style than substance, although the film has it's moments. Basically the plot borrows heavily from Escape from New York: A dystopian future where the Parisian suburbs (banlieues) are walled off and are pretty much controlled by gangs and an outsider needs to infiltrate the area with the help of a local to retrieve a stolen nuke. With that premise there is a bit of social commentary that you see but it doesn't take away from the film's main draw which are it's action sequences.

Yes pretty much thanks to the two talented leads: Cyril Rafaelli and David Belle you end up with some pretty neat set pieces without the use of any trickery. David Belle being the founder of parkour has this amazing chase sequence, so well paced and well shot, and he does it topless to show that no wires were used. David Belle is actually quite a decent actor but he is a traceur first and he is pretty much overshadowed by the far more talented Cyril but you cannot deny they have really good chemistry.

I love the other characters too particularly the drug lord Taha and his right hand K2. The actors playing them were super charismatic. And then there's Lola, David Belle's character's sister, who falls into the Luc Besson trope of badass female character who is also weirdly sexualized and infantilized (you'll get what I mean when you see her character in the first and third acts).

It's not a perfect film. It's a little too short so it could've used an extra few minutes but on the other hand it means that it get's to the point and doesn't waste our time. And the editing of the first act is not well done as the two leads are introduced in two separate sequences, which is the only thing the god awful American remake, Brick Mansions, did right. However the action sequences are edited brilliantly which is not the same for Brick Mansions.

Overall, that is the reason why this is my favourite French movie. It is a very sleek looking film with great action sequences, a good musical score and solid acting. And as with any good French film, there is always a bad American remake.

I watched this movie on Netflix 2 hours ago (baked). The title basically states the plot but just to elaborate quickly: Van Wilder, a professional bodyguard for (corrupt) political figures, is now tasked with protecting Shaft, an assassin, so that he can testify against a dictator in the International Criminal Court.

The ICC is located in the Netherlands hence the second act takes place in Amsterdam, a city I love visiting. Whenever a film establishes a location, they better make good use of it and they did here. I appreciated little details like a set piece through the red light district which had hookers running away in fear.

The premise is pretty simple and the best way to execute it is to have two actors with proper chemistry. Both Reynolds and Jackson are very verbose and witty actors who carved out a niche playing wordy badasses. They seem to have some good banter going. Sometimes they try too hard to get in the last word which can get annoying. But then there are times where they discuss ethics.

And its because of the mixture of well executed set pieces and the chemistry of the two leads that carry the film well and make it quite entertaining. So yeah it is no Shane Black movie but it emulates it well enough.

First off I'm not paid off by a major Hollywood studio. On a macroscopic level, the concept of this film is quite interesting. A police procedural in a reality much similar to our own save for the fact that there are also fantastical creatures. The concept is one thing the execution is another. And so lets give it to the director of Suicide Squad.

You would think David Ayer would've learned how to pace and structure a film after the Hindenburg that was his last film. But no. This film has no clue on how to use planting and payoff and so you're never engaged. And it becomes infuriating at times. There is basically nothing pushing the plot. It just seems that stuff just happens to the characters. There are only one or two moments where a character makes a decision, be it minor or major. Hence the characters go through no arcs. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the cringe worthy dialogue: "Fairy lives don't matter(?)".

Strike two goes against the world building. Now again, when dealing with a high concept film like this where you are setting up the universe and its rules, you have to be meticulous. The world building is so sloppy that, again, the audience is no longer engaged. There are references to the Alamo and Shrek. How is that possible in that reality? Explain! And what does it mean when an Orc gets blooded? And with the film's Macguffin, a magic wand, they set up the rules, but yet then the characters aren't aware of the film's internal logic. And so it renders much of the second act quite moot.

Ugh. But the worst offense is the film's use of allegorical racism. Even a good film like Zootopia really missed the big picture, so imagine how poorly handled it was here. Racism is, for lack of a better word, complicated. It operates first on the concept of race, an arbitrary social construct. Human beings exhibit very superficial physical differences, but overall we are still one species. I can't tell you how many pointless conversations I've had with my simpleton friends when it came to defining a person's ethnicity, how their rules tended to fall apart after a few sentences. So it is not a one to one comparison when defining the relationship between a black dude and a white dude to a rabbit and fox or specifically an orc and a human. The marginalized group in this film are the orcs, because 2000 years ago there was a war with a Dark Lord or w.e. and they sided with him blah blah blah and that's it. There aren't any other institutional, societal or historical factors. And the characters that present their resentment towards the other are not subtle about it at all. Racism operates on many levels, and its not just based on emotion.

I wonder why Will Smith, one of my favourite actors, has been choosing such awful projects. Why is it that in every film now he is scowling when back in the days of Bad Boys and Independence day he was an overall happy and charming charming character. But while his last couple of films were forgettable, I can't really say the same for this. This film will be studied in classes, I guarantee it, but for all the wrong reasons. So while Will Smith chose another bad film, he at least chose a film that is pretty infamous, so I am interested to see what kind of career trajectory this will take him. Touche.

Movie's centered around the hip-hop scene has hits and misses. You have really good ones like 8 Mile and Straight Outta Compton and then you have not so good ones like Get Rich or Die Trying' and Notorious. Most of these take place during the golden age, from the late 80s to the mid 90s. And at that time you cover a lot of social and political issues with the crack epidemic/war on drugs and the fact that middle America was beginning to hear about the movement and the effect it was having on the culture.

We've seen biopics on the Notorious B.I.G., NWA and now they are adapting the life and story of one of the most enigmatic and complex people of his generation. Tupac Shakur was not one of my favourite rappers (that would go to Method Man). In fact he was nowhere near the wordsmith as Rakim, the Wu-Tang Clan or even his friend turned rival Biggie was. However he was influential in the aesthetics. There are many rappers now brandishing tattoos and bandanas and going to the gym. He also had an insane work ethic, just see how many posthumous albums he has. And speaking of which, he is best known for being hip hop's first martyr, in which his lifestyle tragically caught up with him (and Biggie).

Within his 25 years of existence Shakur has gone through a lot. So as a filmmaker adapting his life story, what would you focus on? His family members being Black Panthers? His complicated relationships with women? His struggle to be a role model for young Black Americans? His constant battle with law enforcement? His search for a father figure? Or his downward spiral since becoming involved with Suge Knight?

Well it is possible to look into all of that. But you need a very talented person behind it. So let's get the guy who did music videos for Nelly and directed... Next Day Air and... SWAT Firefight? Yeah you can see this is doomed from the beginning. There are some good scenes, especially the ones with Afeni Shakur and Jada Pinkett. But then there are some laughable scenes, one of which involves a serious moment where he got shot in the lobby on his way to meet Biggie.

Overall this feels like a quick skimming of a textbook rather than a film about Pac. I would recommend watching Tupac: Resurrection.

See Sony you get to have your cake and eat it by giving Spider-Man back to Marvel. I haven't done a review in a while because I get really defeated with typing my thoughts out and there ends up being a lot to say. But this film was a pretty shallow entertaining flick brought to again by Marvel.

And like an MCU film it hits those same beats, frenetic action sequences, a rich colour palate (a huge step up from the Webb films by the way), tons of cgi, and ohh the incessant humour.

Overall I liked this film, but I wasn't so excited about this like I was as an 11-year old back in 2002 seeing my favourite superhero come on screen for the first time. I liked the fact that they didn't rehash the origin story. This time Spider-Man is a small player in a much bigger Avengers laden world and he's figuring out what his purpose is. The villain in this film is actually interesting which is a rarity in Marvel. There is very little setup for future films and it actually is pretty self contained. And they actually goofed on the fact that him swinging around to transport himself is hardly possible outside Manhattan.

Now onto gripes, which are there but it didn't take me out of the film like the Webb films did. Spider-Man's suit is way too tricked out with Tony Stark's gizmos, which makes him too much like Iron-Man and not really himself, which is a plot point but still. And it occurred to me: where's his Spider sense? Isn't that a key component to this character?

Anyways just watch this. Have fun. It's a huge step up from the Amazing Spider-Man films but still doesn't stir the emotions of the first two Raimi films. I think I'm done here. It's good. Have a watch. Or don't. Up to you. I made a review. Hope you found it useful.

I wanted to see a movie on discount Tuesday and thought to myself why not watch another studio churned cgi mess? This is exactly what it was but somehow managed to be subversive enough in its presentation that I had a lot of fun watching it.

This is supposed to take place in the same universe as the Godzilla film of 2014. That is why King Kong is the size of a 30 story building, in hopes that he can throw down with Godzilla in a crossover film. Unlike Godzilla however, this film didn't shy away with showing as much Kong as possible and it was glorious. The scenes where Kong smashes helicopters and fights monsters had that perfect blend of over-the- top action and just being visceral. And the violence in this film had a degree of macabre, so there were moments I was like gasping and chuckling saying "Oh my god!". So many characters get picked off at unexpected moments that it kept the film really suspenseful.

Now this film follows a trend where this is the sophomore film of a director who's debut was a low budget indie film. I think studios do this so that the director is easy to push around and you can cheap out on his share of the budget. And I think the director knew this so he decided to mess around with the audience. There is so much weird dialogue about nothing and I swear the median shot length of the first act was around 1 second because it kept quick cutting. And rather than being annoyed with it, I embraced it and only make me like it more as I placed myself in the directors shoes.

The plot was also weird to say the least especially the setting. Why they wanted the film to be set during the Vietnam War confuses me still. Is it because they wanted to represent a demoralized military force being defeated again by a primitive enemy? Or to push Samuel L Jackson's character as really jaded as he is a Colonel in the US Army. Either way it really worked, because what we ended up getting was a mix of Apocalypse Now, an adventure film, a monster film, a b- movie and Moby Dick.

The characters in this film were a mixed bag. Loki and much of the cast were uninteresting and one dimensional. I don't recall Loki ever going through a character arc and all the blonde girl was characterized as an anti-war shutterbug. The two most interesting characters were played by John C Reilly and Samuel L Jackson. Reilly plays a WW2 pilot who crash landed on the island and had survived off the natives. He was so eccentric and funny and I loved him. Samuel L Jackson though stole the show. As mentioned he plays a very Jaded US Army Colonel who basically becomes the Captain Ahab of the film. I love it when he plays these intense unhinged characters and was so glad he could fit this into his filming schedule. Please keep making movies Sam, I beg you!

So yea, I highly recommend this. Its a very entertaining film that doesn't take itself too seriously unlike Godzilla 2014 did. It has a lot of the generic big budget action tropes but it also manages to mess with your expectations.

Look I'm not trying to be non-conformist here. It seem's like I've been crapping on every X-Men film since the 3rd one. However there are actual good things to say about this film. The acting and the script are really good, and the tone is actually pretty consistent here. Its also very nice to finally see a Wolverine film where there there is a good amount of blood.

But for every scene where Wolverine hacks away at the bad guys does it have to be filled in with 40 mins of snail paced scenes? There are so many scenes of just... talking and... driving and...drinking and... pill popping and... sleeping and driving and talking DEAR LORD! I know this is supposed to be a gritty, almost western like film based off the Old Man Logan comic where its more about the character arc than saving the world but... no that's still no excuse. The studio threw a budget into this and this is Hugh Jackman's last outing as the character, it could've done better.

The plot could've been better. It could've been about Wolverine renouncing the use of his claws (just like Old Man Logan) but something from his past comes back to haunt him and he must fix this before his time runs out and in the process hacks away at some armour-clad gunmen. Instead we get a weird Last of Us ripoff mixed in with a road trip movie where Wolverine, the badass mind you, is a baby-sitter and nurse.

And the villains suck by the way. The first one is played by the guy from Narcos, and I don't remember the character's name at all that's how forgettable he was. He didn't really do anything menacing. The second is the first one's boss. A scientist who just happens to make stuff happen with little to no explanation. There is a huge bit of exposition regarding the second villain and in essence the film's premise but it was all condensed into one throw-away line.

Let me compare this to another R-rated superhero film with a brooding protagonist which also kick-started the Marvel boom: Blade. I remember there were actually a lot of quiet slow paced scenes. But why do I like that film way more? Well actually even the slow paced scenes served a purpose, they weren't filler. The protagonist was consistently badass and stoic and had a mission from the beginning and wasn't thrust into a situation. The villain was a lot of fun. The movie had a lot of atmosphere and world building. And most of all, every character tried to be pro-active.

I'm sorry you had to read this but this is film. It's subjective. I understand there are some emotions attached to this as Hugh Jackman will say goodbye to this character and I think X-Men will start fresh. But take off those goggles and watch it as just a film and you will see just how boring it is. Hey at least that opener with Deadpool was fun.

I remember Independence Day and how huge it was. It is one of the defining blockbusters of the 90s and that decade had only a few (Jurassic Park, Titanic and Phantom Menace are what I can think of immediately). Now in the 2010s there is a massive hit almost every month. ID4 wasn't a culturally significant film in the sense of Schindler's List, but it is still known as being the quintessential popcorn flick. And I think that is what Roland Emmerich is good at.

There are some comparisons you can make with Roland and Michael Bay but I think Roland is a competent director. He does not engage in harmful ethnic stereotypes or female objectification or low brow humour like Bay. And I'll say this: Roland can handle an ensemble cast WAY BETTER than Bryan Singer and give them their proper screen time.

Now with this long awaited sequel, 20 years to be exact, how does it hold up to the original? It doesn't. But that does not mean I hated it. I thought it was fun for what it was.

Let me get into what I disliked first. No Will Smith. Ohh man how I missed the Fresh Prince in this movie (he better kill it on Suicide Squad). So the film basically lacked the charm of the original. I'm glad Jeff Goldblum was there in all his eccentricity, I love the guy. So was Bill Pullman who gave a very inspiring monologue in the third act. Brent Spiner returns as Dr. Okun waking up from a 20-year coma apparently and he has a bigger part this time.

But it is the younger cast which I wasn't too fond of. Liam Hemsworth is OK but he is oddly enough a poor man's Chris Hemsworth. The guy playing Will Smith's son was such a terrible wooden actor - Oh why Fresh Prince were you not in this?! There is another young cast member who was just annoying, I don't know his name but he plays Liam's wing-man.

There was also some really stilted expository dialogue that plagued the movie's first act. And the plot did not fit the 3 act structure that well of the first film. It takes a while for the aliens to begin invading and then it tries to rush into the final battle. There were still characters being introduced well into the second act. You see tertiary characters die that we were supposed to be emotionally invested in but no proper screen time was given to them. Like any major blockbuster film in the 2010s the climax is hyperactive with many simultaneous things being cross cut together. And like a film of the 2010s there is a lot of really ugly, glossy CGI, which made me yearn for the practical models in the original.

So what did I like? A lot of things actually. First off it built from the original. It did not rehash plot elements (*cough*Force Awakens*cough*) and in fact, unexpectedly built on the mythology. You saw from the trailers how Earth took the alien technology and appropriated it for themselves, so it delves into a futuristic almost space operatic sci-fi film compared to a straight up alien invasion film the original was. On top of the original characters learning from their previous experiences, almost every character goes through a satisfying-ish story arc.

But what I enjoyed the most is that it still tries to maintain the optimistic tone of the original. I still haven't decided whether is succeeded or failed. For now I think it did a good job. There is a lot of destruction but it is presented as a spectacle rather than in a gloomy way. We have seen all these big budget films that try to recreate 9/11 imagery (*cough*Man of Steel*cough*) that it was kind of refreshing to just see mindless destruction again without taking itself too seriously.

So is ID4 1996 the superior film? Yes. But is this sequel a disappointment? I don't think so. To each their own. I'm OK with Roland Emmerich. His films are stupid but they're not offensive. And he doesn't look down on his audience. So yeah, it should be an enjoyable experience in the end.

This is not Bryan Singer's fault. I love the usual suspects and the first two X-Men films. I can definitely see a leaky script and studio meddling here.

I don't get it? Why does every comic book film since the advent of the Avengers have to be these poorly paced bloated CGI messes? And are we really following the messy continuity and character arcs of First Class ?

Re-watching Singer's first 2 films I realised how brilliant they are and how much I dislike everything since. Those first two films basically showed us how less is more. I found it strange how back in 2000, when comic-book films were still finding their footing, Fox decided to adapt one of Marvel's longest running and convoluted properties of a team of superheros where the roster constantly changes. Especially with a relatively low budget considering what they cost now. But it worked, since Singer stuck to limiting the characters, grounding the story and stylistic elements and focusing on the main themes of persecution and prejudice. And they hold up really well.

It was unfortunate how the first two films focused a little too much on Wolverine. But hey, the character is the most popular and he serves a purpose so it really never bothered anyone. However for this new reboot/prequel series, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT MYSTIQUE! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP TRYING TO MAKE HER HAPPEN! STOP TRYING TO MAKE HER A PIVOTAL CHARACTER! I don't care that the studio got Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence to play her. She is a shapeshifter, what good is that going to do when you are fighting a demigod who can bend reality?

Oh yeah the villain, Apocalypse. He is your generic villain that wants to end the world while ensnaring other mutants to do his bidding while he speaks in a Buffalo Bill monotone. What you expected a villain on par with Ian McKellan's Magneto or Brian Cox's Stryker who were actually layered and multi-dimensional?

And yeah Fassbender's Magneto is so all over the place? What are his ideologies? What are his convictions? Why is he still on good terms in Prof X even though he paralysed him and dropped a baseball stadium over the white-house only furthering the fear of mutants?

Usually I moan about character development especially with a film that features an ensemble cast, but actually some were done right. Jean Grey and Cyclops were actually pretty interesting. We see them young and trying to develop their powers, although still they have yet to explain why Cyclops can't control his beams while his eyes are opened (hitting his head in a plane crash). And Jean Grey is mostly a telekinetic so why did they focus on her telepathy so much? The Quicksilver scenes were awesome as usual with his slowed down perception. One character who I felt somewhat got the Shaft was storm, as early in the film she became Apocalypse's underling. She is one of my favourite X-Men and is very powerful but we don't see her use them in a useful way.

The pacing. There is one sub-plot which came out of nowhere and was used for fan service. And the many of the Mystique scenes.

Ultimately this suffers from Age of Ultron syndrome. This is not a bad movie. Nowhere near the mess of Batman vs Superman. However it does not have the balance of Captain America Civil War. It is still another CGI orgy. In the end I really like the first two Singer films. They were so in tune with the themes of the comic book and didn't really care about the look so this film is not my cup of tea. If you like the flashy stuff and not really care about character dynamics then you should be fine with it.

The Marvel films have come a long way now. First they started with movies establishing the characters. Then they all crossed over to fight threats. Now the only sensible thing to do is to start having them come into serious conflict with each other.

The MCU films have so far been solid. You have had great ones like Iron Man, The Avengers and Winter Soldier. And you've had meh ones like Iron Man 2, Thor the Dark World. For me personally, the worst of the bunch is Iron Man 3 but even that is somewhat well made.

I will say Civil War is the more appropriate Avengers sequel. Ultron somewhat gave me a headache as it was all over the place. And its no surprise Joss Whedon just quit after that. This film is surprisingly contained despite being based off of Mark Millar's very extensive storyline. Having removed Hulk and Thor really helped contain the story.

The action set-pieces, while not as all over the place as Ultron was, were still sometimes difficult to watch. I like that the Russo brothers introduced some grit in the Winter Soldier, but they introduced a mild form a shaky cam in Civil War. Yes the camera jolted up and down at times during a frenetic action sequence with some quick cuts.

The best set-piece though had to be the airport throwdown. And unlike Batman v Superman earlier this year, there was a proper build-up to the throwdown between the two disagreeing factions. Not only that, the airport was empty so you can watch the fight with maximum comfort and not worry about civilians or wanton destruction.

And with the build-up to the fight, you can definitely see the characters really develop, not only in this film but the preceding ones as well. Tony Stark started off as basically a neo-con in the first film, then to a guy who opposes the government to now believing in accountability therefore being surprisingly in favour of the superhero registration accord. Steve Rogers a guy who is a relic from a different time is basically someone who always wants to do the right thing and working for the government that looks out for its own self interests may not be the right thing. Both have equally valid points.

There are two new additions. Black Panther or T'Challa is the first. And I'm so glad he finally got his big screen treatment. He is such an awesome character and adds to the diversity sorely lacking in superhero films. His costume is amazing as well. With the director of Creed making his film, it will kick a lot of ass.

The second addition is Spider-Man. And this is one of the better adaptations of the character as they really embellished on his youth. We keep forgetting that Spidey is in his teens. Although I am concerned now that the Marvel films have an over-abundance of quippy characters: Iron Man, Starlord, Ant-Man and now him.

As usual in an MCU film, the villain is forgettable. In this case however, you can excuse that because the main conflict is between the heroes. The revelation in the third act really helps to reinforce that.

So yes this film was really enjoyable. More focused than Ultron and better story telling than the DC films. The only gripe is just with the filming and editing of the action sequences. Marvel, you done it again.

2016 is going to be an insane year for superhero movies, yet the only one I was really interested in is this one. Seriously I am so disinterested now with the big budget superhero films with such convoluted plots, excessive and gratuitous use of CGI, awful pacing, and even being unfaithful to the comics.

Speaking of unfaithful, I was so looking forward to seeing Wade Wilson in the 2009 Wolverine movie, even more when I heard Ryan Reynolds was playing him. That's perfect! Van Wilder can quip like no tomorrow so he's perfect for playing the Merc with the Mouth... sewn shut. Yea great job there Fox. And great job with Fant4stic too...

Then the leaked test footage came out and all of us were like DO THAT! And the coke snorting corporates at Fox listened. From the cleverly designed marketing campaign you knew exactly the direction they were going and man did they not disappoint.

This movie was so much fun. They really got the character so right because I was laughing non-stop. This was a really funny movie. Deadpool is one of the very few characters in the Marvel universe that can break the fourth wall and is self aware. And the movie really got because it is rife with meta-humour which can be seen in the very beginning with the best opening credits scene ever.

And yes we see him breaking the fourth wall, making pop culture references, and slicing up bad guys. The film is not tame. The humour is nowhere near South Park levels but it does give the biggest middle finger to PC culture.

The action scenes are also a lot of fun. From the sword fighting, to the shooting, to the acrobatics, they were all filmed really well. It delivers on the violence too, which is cartoonish enough but it doesn't go too much into Blade territory. Although with Wade Wilson's face, in the comics it is really boiled and deformed and here he just looks like a prune. Guess they wanted to use Ryan Reynolds as much as they could.

The story is quite simple here. Its a love and revenge story. It is well paced though as it is told in a non-linear style. It somewhat slows down for me when it does get to the love story part but thankfully those scenes are mercifully short. There are some plot holes, but you really don't care because of how fun the movie is.

This movie is so refreshing. I thought I was too jaded by superhero films but when you pick the right character to adapt, you can have so much fun with him or her. Honestly I really don't care about any of the upcoming Avengers films or this new X-Men film or the Superman vs Batman film because they're all so formulaic. Deadpool brought us something different and it was awesome, like a chimichanga.

OK it still was but there are some very interesting moments. This film is a mix of things, part Spielberg movie, part monster movie and part brainless summer popcorn flick.

Let's start off as I usually do with the plot. Let's be honest, the first film had a lot subplots that went nowhere like the sick triceratops, the lysine contingency, the dinosaurs breeding and especially the stolen embryos. Sorry Spielberg fans.

Here there is simple albeit a very cohesive plot. The park is now operational for many years but attendance is dwindling so they engineer a hybrid. The hybrid gets loose and chaos ensues. It does get silly however, especially in the third act with the velociraptors.

So yeah, lets talk about the dinosaurs. From a technical standpoint, the CGI it....sucks. The first two films had such gorgeous digital dinosaurs because the animators used a lot of computing power to produce altogether 4 minutes of shots. They got the lighting and the physics right and they were only used in wide shots. In this film they are ugly, pasty, floaty and cartoonish looking things. Also they seem to behave more like movie monsters than animals. The velociraptors are supposed to be intelligent, I get that, but its supposed to be in the sense of opening doors and cornering their prey and not in the sense of communicating with Chris Pratt and what happens in the third act.

Then the human characters. They are all very one dimensional. With the exception of Bryce Dallas Howard's character, no one else seems to have a story arc, again something the first film did really well. Chris Pratt is basically Muldoon but he just espouses Legolas like commentary like 'she's killing for sport' which is very insulting to the audience's intelligence. Bryce Dallas Howard is this uptight corporate person who wears high heels throughout the entire movie, even during chases scenes. Vincent D'Onofrio is this military industrial complex guy who wants to weaponize dinosaurs- yeah you read that right. BD Wong who had one scene in the first film returned for a much more expanded role here.

Then we have the two kid actors who are supposed to be Lex and Tim. And oh god I hated them. This was one of the more futile attempts to make the film more Spielberg-ish and no, let Steve handle child actors from now on.

Among all this silliness though there are unusual flashes of brilliance. What am I talking about? I actually saw some of the themes, motifs and imagery of Michael Crichton's original novel. The original novel went at great lengths to describe unstable systems and chaos theory which sadly the original film just glossed through. In the novel the park was said to be an unstable complex system doomed to fail by Ian Malcolm, then Nedry shuts off the power. In the film it shows Nedry being more or less responsible. In this film its actually more subtle when we hear the guy from Let's Be Cops hint at it and we see the Indominus Rex destabilize the park.

Also the death scenes are very akin to Crichton's book. For a PG-13 film there is a lot of blood spatter. However there was this one death that was in very poor taste and I felt should've weighed in on the characters a bit more but no. And that's what I meant when I said this more or less is a brainless film.

I still think the movie is pretty silly overall but whenever it goes away from being a Spielberg wannabe and a Michael Bay film, it actually has its moments. It will never be as good as the first film, hell even the second which I actually liked but it more than surpasses JP3 as it does manage to capture the theme of Man vs Nature again pretty well.

I think the Marvel studio heads should realise now that comic books and film are two very different media. I don't feel like I'm watching a film franchise any more but a television series on steroids. And everything has to tie into the next couple of episodes.

And hence you get to see this bloated mess with so many sub-plots and really uneven pacing. Initially it starts off strong, cool action sequence in a snowy mountain and everything. Then Tony Stark and Bruce Banner create an artificial intelligence via Mcguffin and it becomes sentient and then genocidal. Which at this point in the MCU Tony has become such an unlikeable character. I don't understand why Hank Pym wasn't introduced earlier on in the franchise. It wouldn't balanced out Tony's character a lot more, but now he's reckless and just straight up stubborn.

Once Ultron gets loose this is where you get to see why the first film was so much better. Much of the second act in the first film had all the characters, even the antagonist Loki, in the heli- carrier, and you get to see them all interact, develop character and advance the plot. Here the second act was literally all over the place as they hopped from one set-piece to another. First you have the Iron-Man Hulkbuster throwdown in Wakanda where they level a 30 story building where it brought up uncomfortable 9/11 imagery. Then the movie just stops where all the characters reconvene in a log cabin where Hawkeye can finally get some character development so the audience can be told 'Hey! He's not that useless. We hired Oscar Nominee Jeremy Renner for a reason'. Then you have a forced romance between Banner and Romanoff which came out of left field. I'm sorry what was all that between her and Captain America in the Winter Soldier for? And what happened to Betty Ross? Then you have Thor and his water well, I dunno. The second act was disorienting to say the least.

Ultron is not a good a villain as Loki. He's an artificial intelligence who has access to nuclear launch codes, and the characters point that out but he doesn't go through with it and instead opts for a more convoluted scheme. Also at times he gets very comical. The final confrontation between the Avengers and Ultron was also messy. The previous film also had an intense chaotic final act but it was still easy to follow. This one got really difficult to follow with characters disappearing for minutes at a time and attending to stuff which really seemed minor to me at times.

As a Marvel film its nowhere near as good as the first Iron Man, the fist Avengers film or the Winter Soldier. However as a popcorn flick its still there. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

This is my third review of this franchise. Instead of going through the absurdity of the action set pieces, the insanely cheesy dialogue, and just the overall middle finger to logic and the laws of physics I will just talk about how I feel about the franchise itself.

First of all I absolutely wholeheartedly recommend you watch this film. Yes its stupid and cheesy but the film knows it. Unlike Michael Bay's films, the Fast & the Furious films are actually tolerable. I think its because the action set pieces are properly shot with little quick cuts and shaky camera and hence do not induce headaches. The humour in these films are a lot more organic and not at the expense of stupid racist gags. The female leads while attractive are not sexually objectified. There isn't any weird fetishism involving the military. The action sequences aren't fireworks shows. And overall the, same film is not being made over and over again.

Yes believe it or not there is a proper well driven plot here albeit it gets insanely convoluted. Its a revenge story but it also involves the retrieval of this God's Eye MacGuffin, I dunno. The movie knows its stupid though and boy is it really really stupid. These movies now show you can basically do anything with a car, possibly open a beer bottle as well. And the human body apparently is made of steel too as it can survive being in a car tumbling down a cliff and ... screw it you've heard me say this before in the previous review.

I remember in early 2001 when I was 10 or 11 years old seeing a TV spot that had Limp Bizkit blaring in the background and people driving brightly coloured sedans starring that pretty blonde dude from Varsity Blues and the Iron Giant. This film looked stupid as it was one of those Point Break rip offs that explored a subculture. I would've never guessed it would turn into a multi billion TV show that jumped the shark. And there will be more. What you think they'll stop when there's money to be made?

I'll also have to admit I got really emotional when it came to Paul Walker's story arc ending. The film really handled his send off well and did a really good job in paying him tribute. Ultimately I'm glad this was his last film and not Brick Mansions.

Look this is still a good film and my rating system has no actual weight here. Christopher Nolan is a brilliant film maker but lately you start noticing that he is not without his shortcomings.

His films are laden with the same tropes especially the massive plot holes. And that was the reason I wanted to see this film, to see what plot hole he had this time and yes they are a plenty.

I will still give credit to where it's due. He really wanted to make a head scratcher and this time with the laws of general relativity which the film does closely follow. Basically the emotional device here is that Matthew Mahogany traveling at a fraction of the speed of light through space makes him age slower than his kids and basically its a race against time.

However the Nolan-isms come full circle with not-so-subtle foreshadowing, overly pretentious unnatural dialogue, heavy-handed symbolism, a really ear-ringing Hans Zimmer score which make the Inception horns sound like and an unnecessarily long run time.

I can see that this is a script he didn't really have time to think through but you can see he tried and its still pretty entertaining. However it's no 2001 A Space Odyssey. He should stick to thrillers. Sorry.

I really love the first two movies. I really do. They were made during a different climate. Audiences are very used to comic book films now and their grandiosity but back then the first two films were very much contained. Therefore they had more subtlety and sophistication.

They were also directed by Bryan Singer, the genius behind one of the coolest films I've ever seen (KEYZER SOZE!) and it makes you wonder: where the hell was he in the last four films?!

And you an definitely see that he is now cleaning up the last four turds that were dropped on the franchise he built. Yes I even include First Class which basically butchered any discernible continuity and messed up all character arcs.

And the film messily incorporates all the elements of the preceding four and on top of that has to incorporate fan service, build the plot around CGI heavy set pieces and a gratuitous ass shot of Hugh Jackman's bare ass (shudder). Throughout the film I've had more questions than answers. The plot is all over the place that some characters are rendered useless, especially our favourite Wolverine, since he time travels to when he had bone claws.

However when you get past all that and go straight to the Singer elements that's when you appreciate it. The acting is still really good and the imagery and themes capture the pathos of the comics really well. Also the opening credits just like the first two with the DNA helix roller coaster, just awesome to see that again.

I can honestly say that this film series has seriously jumped the shark. But as a film with the basic metrics of acting, production value and emotion it is still very good. However for the love of god just give the rights of X-Men to Marvel studios, the same goes for Spider-Man.

This was one film I really wanted to see this year thanks to be shrouded in such secrecy. It could really enhance the film experience or ruin it. In a way, while I still enjoyed this film, it did kind of both.

I will try not to spoil this film but what the trailers hinted at is that this movie takes place in a world where monsters exist. And given that zombies have taken over pop culture, Pacific Rim really needs some backup.

The plot basically starts out with Heisenberg trying to figure out the truth behind an incident which he witnessed and that leads to the revelation that monsters exist. However Malcolm's dad isn't the central protagonist of this film, he actually gets cut short of screen time. Thats what happens when you get the 'and' label in the opening credits. However the amount of screen time he had, it was either go hard or go home, and he put his Breaking Bad chops into play.

Actually the central protagonist is Kick Ass, and really? He's too damn young or at least too young looking to play a high ranking military guy and family man. Just because he's married to a lady twice his age doesn't mean he can play mature roles. And he's basically has a Brad Pitt World War Z story arc, trying to reconnect with his wife, a good looking Olsen sister I didn't know exist. There is Saito, who plays the scientist researching the monsters and has some pretty questionable philosophical views. And there are way too man expendable characters.

I've been talking about the actors too much and that's because the movie focuses on the humans. Which is good story telling because it's easier to be invested in the story, just like the Walking Dead. But let's be honest, aren't we here to see monsters scrap? Well we kind of do but there's way too much buildup. Whenever we do see monsters finally come on screen the first couple of times it immediately cuts to the aftermath. You get serious blue balls. Eventually it does pay off, not the way you hope but it has some insanely cool moments.

The imagery of this film, wow. Remember that 1998 Roland Emmerich film? Yea that's a Disney film, with all the markings of a pre-9/11 light hearted romp. This film has such beautiful but shockingly dark and brooding imagery. When the carnage and destruction takes place, it's a little disturbing but jaw dropping at the same time. It basically recaptures the sense of atmosphere by the original 1954 Ishiro Honda picture.

This movie also has a not-so-subtle anti-nuclear power and weapons theme. Come on, Hollywood why do you keep demonizing something that you clearly don't fully understand? Nuclear energy is clean and renewable, and if disposed of properly the waste decays in time without doing much harm. And nuclear weapons while scary, will always be used as deterrents and not as actual weapons.

In the end this film is a very solid effort. You will find yourself, like me, nitpicking the crap out of it, but still enjoying it. It is not disappointing at all like the 1998 movie and it manages to capture its tone really well.

I'm sorry, I really want to love this film and in general the film series but for the most part I was mildly thrilled. I still have a soft spot for Raimi's film's even though I know Garfield and Stone are way better to watch than Maguire and....ugggggh...Kirsten Dunst and the 3rd film was awful.

However I will give credit to where credit is due, this film does do some stuff better. Like they show the Rhino, pre-armour, as this crazy Russian gangster. The swinging and action sequences look cool as hell. Spider-Man makes his wise cracks, which were rarely in the Raimi films. Also Peter Parker takes the initiative and researches ways to defeat his foe. And Spidey's got the original costume.

Yes I said foe, singular. The plot is too dense for it's own good and it ends up devoting screen time to the wrong things. The villains are one of them. It eventually ends up being that Electro is the main villain, and man is his story arc weak and silly to begin with. Seriously, who keeps a vat of electric eels lying around, and conveniently place them under a live wire and- OK calm down. And they call Raimi's films silly.

There are way too many plot threads, and some really didn't require a resolution. Especially that thing with Peter's dad. Any idiot from a mile away could've easily figured out that his dad was fleeing because this company wanted to misuse his inventions and blah blah blah screen time wasted.

Another thing that wastes screen time is the on again off again relationship between Peter and Gwen. Sure the two actors have chemistry but this stuff relative to the plot was tooth rotting. And also it really pushes the hipster aesthetic on you. And for those who've read the comics, you can tell that this movie has way less than subtle foreshadowing.

And this is where my argument, on why the previous decade's Spidey films (at least the first two) are actually better, comes full circle. The Raimi film's have more of a timeless quality to them. They have that post 9/11 vibe and the stories flow really well albeit being very simple. When I watch the Amazing Spidey films, I can easily tell how dated they are. From the bad haircuts and clothes to the dubstep-ish music. Thank you director of 500 days of summer.

In the end this movie is enjoyable. I can nitpick it to death but we all know Marvel needs to consolidate all their characters, now.

Well for starters as a Marvel fan I was pretty happy. And as a Canadian watching a film about a walking American flag, I enjoyed it. 'MURICA! Any ways I usually give films a 10 star rating as long I don't get wholly taken out of the film and for the most part this film managed to keep me invested.

I do like the fact that it is very tonally different from the other Marvel films we've seen so far. This is very much a spy thriller film with comic book stylization peppered in. It has a very engaging plot with a very cool twist in the middle which I won't spoil.

The plot involves Cap now working for SHIELD, doing missions, 70 years after being in suspended animation. He no A major story arc in the comics is how Rogers is trying to adjust to modern society. While the film does touch on this, it gets sacrificed for screen time and it looks as if Cap is more or less content. Something I do like is how, this once unrelatable superhero from the 40s who did nothing else but punch Axis agents in the jaw, is now the voice of reason against blind patriotism, over surveillance, the climate of fear and the drone culture.

The titular character, the Winter Soldier, is in all of his bad ass glory. While he doesn't get a poor send off like Bobba Fett or Darth Maul or get reduced to a punch line like (shudder) the Mandarin, he still kinda gets pushed aside for the larger plot elements. I do like the fact that they totally stuck to the comic book design of this character although the Soviet Star on his metal arm only confused me with his allegiance. You will see why.

The other characters were just awesome. Robert Redford doing his spy movie thing, Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow is hot as always although these films really like scratching at her back story but never provide. Anthony Mackie's character as the Falcon I thought was a cool addition and not too contrived seeing that Black superheroes are generally lacking.

The more technical stuff I enjoyed was actually the downplaying of CGI, the action set pieces and the fight choreography. I will have to say Marvel, they're on the up and up again after Iron Man 3.

Oh wow, this is what you call jumping the shark. It all started in 2001 with a low budget film about the street racing subculture. Now its become an action film franchise with over the top machismo. Each film progressively chipped away more logic and physics.

Now I actually liked Fast Five because it actually had a believable premise given the context. Yes it was cheesy and over testosteroned but it actually had a well paced plot. However the cast has ballooned to a very large size, this film's become very unfocused. So much so that every character is now laughably one dimensional. There are numerous contrived plot points and no character ever questions anything. The Rock's character is after a bad guy but since the bad guy uses cars, oh, I need Vin Diesel AND HIS TEAM for this. And yeah, everyone is willing no question.

I thought that Fast Five actually concluded the characters story arcs but they wanted to due a fan service by resurrecting Michelle Rodriguez. And it was done in the most contrived fashion as possible by giving her amnesia.

The film did have some pretty good set pieces but sadly you saw all these action sequences in the trailer. And thats because the film slows down in the second act and it tries to liven up by even putting in a street race in the middle of a surprisingly empty London. And that's weird seeing how each film's plot revolves around how many car stunts they can put in.

And the action scenes really make the vault drag in Fast Five physically plausible. There is so much flying around and defying gravity, I'll bet you'll see less in the upcoming Superman film. And the physics of this film is so inconsistent. In the tank scene we see the villain engage in casual murder by pancaking all the cars in a highway yet it seems to have trouble crushing Tyrese's car. Also the plane scene in the climax; that must be the longest runway in the world.

I can see why Justin Lin took this franchise to that many films, because the initial ones weren't that profitable. However at over 2 hours long, you start wondering how you could take any of the cheesy dialogue that fills this film seriously.

Oh well, its pure popcorn pleasure. It knows what it does, even though you'll be palming your forehead at many instances.