Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the second of the Andrew Garfield franchise, Spidey attempts to keep his distance from Gwen (Emma Stone) to keep her safe, while Electro (Jamie Foxx) and Norman Osborne (Dane DeHaan) conspire to bring him down.
Liked
Web-slinging movie physics, good small moments between characters.
Disliked
Wasting Foxx and Giamatti's talents, cramming too many things.
Thoughts
A weird hodgepodge of mostly good scenes.
While donning the mask, Garfield was on point again, slinging wisecracks like spiderwebs. While sans mask, his chemistry with adorable Stone led to some very likable, cute moments. I thought the drama was well done too. The emotional payoff scenes between the romantic leads, as well as between Garfield and Sally Field, had some powerful moments.
Action-wise, they were solid scenes. The movie seemed to be at its free-ist whenever Spider-Man went skyscraper-swinging, with parabolic physics and fun camera angles. And while I didn't quite comprehend the movie logic/physics of Electro's mercurial powers, it did lead to some interesting gravity-defying aerial battles.
While the good guys were enjoyable most of the time, I couldn't say the same for the bad guys. Paul Giamatti as Rhino was underwhelming and superfluous. But the bigger waste of a talent was to strip Foxx of his personality and physical charms, just to make him into a walking rave party. His stiff CGI performance reminded me of a PG-13 Dr. Manhattan.
The other issue could be summed up with this twist on the cliche: the whole was not greater than the sum of the parts. Halfway in, I realized it the story was just a patchwork of (mostly good) moments that made no sense. Character arcs were practically non-existent, and the plot momentum sputtered as the movie tried to serve too many masters. There was one significant character development, but instead of making that a fascinating theme of the story, it was just resolved in ten minutes like a throwaway scene.
Look at the music credits for The Amazing Spider-Man 2. It's a perfect microcosm of the sequel's flaws. It was a bizarre mud-ball of Hans Zimmer, Junkie XL, Pharrell and Johnny Marr. Much like the movie, where stitching romance, mumblecore, comic book pathos, explosion extravaganzas, Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino together made for a non-functioning sweater of nonsense.
Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014. Show all posts
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier.
Liked
Charming cast/interactions, political thriller vibe.
Disliked
Not delivering on said thriller vibe.
Hated
Bad computer technology plot line.
Thoughts
Kind of a slow burn, but ultimately enjoyable superhero movie.
My favorite part was the funny chemistry between Captain America and his sidekicks. Similar to Thor, Cap by himself isn't very compelling (for slightly different reasons). But his interactions/head-butting with ball-busting Black Widow, funny Falcon, and morally-ambiguous Nick Fury help define the humor and ethics of Cap's character.
Mackie as Falcon was super-likable, making me super-giddy at the possibility of a The Hurt Locker reunion in Avengers: Age of Ultron. I didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to have such a big part as Fury, playing the shadow to Cap's moral light. After this movie, I'm now way in favor of a Black Widow spinoff movie, thanks to the funny dialog and Scarlett Johansson's badass performance.
The pacing definitely reminded me of old school political thrillers, with a touch of paranoia, moral debate, and atmosphere. Having the legendary Robert Redford with his All the Presidents Men baggage definitely helped with that vibe. It also made for a more relatable character/world compared to the first Captain America movie, as we see some clash of national security principles between Cap and Fury.
Speaking of the first movie, I felt like it was very close to being essential viewing before enjoying The Winter Soldier, as ghosts of Steve Rogers' past keep getting all up in his grill. Having said that, it did a decent job of reminding the audience previous events without much obligatory flashback.
Two other flaws bugged me. First one had to do with the silly portrayal of computer security. You've got an aerial battleship designed for war, but with servers so insecure you can easily pull computer chips out single-handedly?
Secondly, while I enjoyed some of the political thriller aspects of the story, it was ultimately kind of underwhelming. While there were some interesting morality arguments about freedom versus security, the movie itself didn't really integrate those themes into the plot and Captain America's character arc. They helped define some characters, but for all the cool talk, that's all it was, and now it's time to blow stuff up.
Warts aside, in the end, I liked Captain America: The Winter Soldier a lot, thanks to the fun chemistry between Evans, Johansson, Mackie, and Jackson, sprinkled with some creeping 1970's vibe.
Random
Maybe I'm Room 237'ing it, but did I spy an Ultron/Henry Pym throwaway line?
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel, Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier.
Liked
Charming cast/interactions, political thriller vibe.
Disliked
Not delivering on said thriller vibe.
Hated
Bad computer technology plot line.
Thoughts
Kind of a slow burn, but ultimately enjoyable superhero movie.
My favorite part was the funny chemistry between Captain America and his sidekicks. Similar to Thor, Cap by himself isn't very compelling (for slightly different reasons). But his interactions/head-butting with ball-busting Black Widow, funny Falcon, and morally-ambiguous Nick Fury help define the humor and ethics of Cap's character.
Mackie as Falcon was super-likable, making me super-giddy at the possibility of a The Hurt Locker reunion in Avengers: Age of Ultron. I didn't expect Samuel L. Jackson to have such a big part as Fury, playing the shadow to Cap's moral light. After this movie, I'm now way in favor of a Black Widow spinoff movie, thanks to the funny dialog and Scarlett Johansson's badass performance.
The pacing definitely reminded me of old school political thrillers, with a touch of paranoia, moral debate, and atmosphere. Having the legendary Robert Redford with his All the Presidents Men baggage definitely helped with that vibe. It also made for a more relatable character/world compared to the first Captain America movie, as we see some clash of national security principles between Cap and Fury.
Speaking of the first movie, I felt like it was very close to being essential viewing before enjoying The Winter Soldier, as ghosts of Steve Rogers' past keep getting all up in his grill. Having said that, it did a decent job of reminding the audience previous events without much obligatory flashback.
Two other flaws bugged me. First one had to do with the silly portrayal of computer security. You've got an aerial battleship designed for war, but with servers so insecure you can easily pull computer chips out single-handedly?
Secondly, while I enjoyed some of the political thriller aspects of the story, it was ultimately kind of underwhelming. While there were some interesting morality arguments about freedom versus security, the movie itself didn't really integrate those themes into the plot and Captain America's character arc. They helped define some characters, but for all the cool talk, that's all it was, and now it's time to blow stuff up.
Warts aside, in the end, I liked Captain America: The Winter Soldier a lot, thanks to the fun chemistry between Evans, Johansson, Mackie, and Jackson, sprinkled with some creeping 1970's vibe.
Random
Maybe I'm Room 237'ing it, but did I spy an Ultron/Henry Pym throwaway line?
Edge of Tomorrow
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater 3D.
Premise
Based on the novel, All You Need is Kill, Tom Cruise stars as a soldier who gets stuck in a time loop while fighting alien invaders.
Loved
Underrated comedic moments.
Liked
Tom Cruise, strong story, well-done action and 3D.
Disliked
A couple implausible movie physics moments.
Thoughts
At first, I thought it would be a bloated, lame mashup of Groundhog Day and The Matrix. Turns out it was a well-written sci-fi action flick.
For a summer blockbuster, the story was pretty strong. The plot was taught, no superfluous scenes, and easy-to-digest time-travel movie logic. None of the themes were ground-breaking, but the story-telling was just really well-done. It smartly gave a change of scenery halfway to push the pace and remove repetition. Even the minor characters were thoughtfully inserted, with a nice twist at the end.
There's been some dips in his career, but there's something timeless about watching Cruise doing his thang. His smile, chuckle, glare, grit is pretty much the same, but I instantly believed him as the reluctant soldier with greatness thrust upon him. The only thing missing was his patented sprinting (my friend said it happened but I must've missed it). He also got good rapport with Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, and Emily Blunt (who despite her obligatory hot body shot delivered intelligence and gravitas).
The most underrated aspect was the movie's surprising sense of humor. Throughout, the film makers threw funny curveballs, usually in the form of Cruise dying, enhancing the precision-guided action-packed journey with a jolt of levity.
While the CGI, special effects, and 3D were extremely well-executed, I wouldn't call them mind-blowing. In this case, this was a good thing, as it integrated with the story. You feel the epic scale chaos of the beach landing. The film's opening release date on the 70th anniversary of D-Day was clearly intentional. You could also see the attention to detail and meticulous planning required to blend 3D, CGI, and live-action to make battles between spiky, tentacled baddies and soldiers in exoskeletons feel immersive and organic.
Having said that, the 3D was a mild recommendation. Even though it was deftly made, it wasn't integral to the story-telling.
For the most part, the movie physics was grounded in realism, without being overly-gritty or dour. However, it inadvertently made some of the more outrageous action moments slightly implausible that a human body could take that punishment.
Another slightly implausible part was with how Cruise learned to survive. In Groundhog Day, you really felt the mundane drudgery of repeating the same day over and over again, slowly mastering your craft. While it was funny and cool to do a montage of training followed by dying, it actually could've used a few more iterations to really hammer in the amount of grunt work Cruise's character had to endure to become the superhero-ish.
While it didn't keep the badass name of the book, Edge of Tomorrow's generic title probably better fit this smartly-planned, expertly-executed summer flick. Cruise still had his A-game, the writing was taught, the action was visual exciting, and the sneaky comedy all contribute to a good time.
2014
Formats
Movie theater 3D.
Premise
Based on the novel, All You Need is Kill, Tom Cruise stars as a soldier who gets stuck in a time loop while fighting alien invaders.
Loved
Underrated comedic moments.
Liked
Tom Cruise, strong story, well-done action and 3D.
Disliked
A couple implausible movie physics moments.
Thoughts
At first, I thought it would be a bloated, lame mashup of Groundhog Day and The Matrix. Turns out it was a well-written sci-fi action flick.
For a summer blockbuster, the story was pretty strong. The plot was taught, no superfluous scenes, and easy-to-digest time-travel movie logic. None of the themes were ground-breaking, but the story-telling was just really well-done. It smartly gave a change of scenery halfway to push the pace and remove repetition. Even the minor characters were thoughtfully inserted, with a nice twist at the end.
There's been some dips in his career, but there's something timeless about watching Cruise doing his thang. His smile, chuckle, glare, grit is pretty much the same, but I instantly believed him as the reluctant soldier with greatness thrust upon him. The only thing missing was his patented sprinting (my friend said it happened but I must've missed it). He also got good rapport with Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson, and Emily Blunt (who despite her obligatory hot body shot delivered intelligence and gravitas).
The most underrated aspect was the movie's surprising sense of humor. Throughout, the film makers threw funny curveballs, usually in the form of Cruise dying, enhancing the precision-guided action-packed journey with a jolt of levity.
While the CGI, special effects, and 3D were extremely well-executed, I wouldn't call them mind-blowing. In this case, this was a good thing, as it integrated with the story. You feel the epic scale chaos of the beach landing. The film's opening release date on the 70th anniversary of D-Day was clearly intentional. You could also see the attention to detail and meticulous planning required to blend 3D, CGI, and live-action to make battles between spiky, tentacled baddies and soldiers in exoskeletons feel immersive and organic.
Having said that, the 3D was a mild recommendation. Even though it was deftly made, it wasn't integral to the story-telling.
For the most part, the movie physics was grounded in realism, without being overly-gritty or dour. However, it inadvertently made some of the more outrageous action moments slightly implausible that a human body could take that punishment.
Another slightly implausible part was with how Cruise learned to survive. In Groundhog Day, you really felt the mundane drudgery of repeating the same day over and over again, slowly mastering your craft. While it was funny and cool to do a montage of training followed by dying, it actually could've used a few more iterations to really hammer in the amount of grunt work Cruise's character had to endure to become the superhero-ish.
While it didn't keep the badass name of the book, Edge of Tomorrow's generic title probably better fit this smartly-planned, expertly-executed summer flick. Cruise still had his A-game, the writing was taught, the action was visual exciting, and the sneaky comedy all contribute to a good time.
Godzilla
Viewed in
2014.
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the Gareth Edwards version, humans unexpectedly awaken a flying monster, and brace themselves as it begins to destroy American West coast cities, with Godzilla chasing after it.
Loved
Full use of IMAX 3D scale.
Liked
Decent human characters, slow burn pace of revealing Godzilla.
Disliked
Tsunami scene.
Thoughts
Just on the verge of must-see status in IMAX 3D.
Director Gareth Edwards did a great job of using the Jaws approach to show off the main attraction; cleverly framing the monsters in a way that their immensity could not be contained by puny 3D IMAX large screens. The well-paced movie was filled with jaw-dropping CGI kaiju scenes. Edwards also found cool ways of keeping them hidden in rubble, dust, or plain sight. By never giving us a chance to see Godzilla in his entirety until the very end, when we finally see him in his gargantuan form, the sense of scale is truly realized.
The film makers honored the franchise's legacy in the reboot, by keeping the themes of Japan's painful history of nuclear devastation. In keeping with the 1954 original, the tone was serious without being pretentious, preachy, or hokey. It found a really good balance of disaster-porn and escapist summer fun. Also, kudos for destroying Hawaii, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, instead of the usual suspects.
Another way it honored the past was through Alexandre Desplat's excellent score; a modern take while shouting out to (Godzilla's first composer) Akira Ifukube's use of horns and drums.
Besides the bad-ass/charming CGI'd King of the Monsters, the cast was strong and characters were not lazy cardboard cutouts. Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen led the way by chewing up the scenery, including two "earn your paycheck" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was solid as kind of the main character.
As mentioned earlier, there was some clever shots of hidden monsters, although it did lead to some wonky movie physics. The fact that the monsters can pick and choose when their footsteps are silent or earth-shattering was implausible at times.
But my biggest issue was the tsunami scene, which borderlined on bad taste. Godzilla embodied nuclear allegories. A tsunami in Hawaii only conjured real-life imagery of Fukushima, Japan, and South Asia disasters, losing the escapist quality the rest of the movie possessed.
I had a blast watching Godzilla thanks to the deft use of IMAX 3D screens and embracing the franchise's baggage into this reboot.
2014.
Formats
IMAX 3D.
Premise
In the Gareth Edwards version, humans unexpectedly awaken a flying monster, and brace themselves as it begins to destroy American West coast cities, with Godzilla chasing after it.
Loved
Full use of IMAX 3D scale.
Liked
Decent human characters, slow burn pace of revealing Godzilla.
Disliked
Tsunami scene.
Thoughts
Just on the verge of must-see status in IMAX 3D.
Director Gareth Edwards did a great job of using the Jaws approach to show off the main attraction; cleverly framing the monsters in a way that their immensity could not be contained by puny 3D IMAX large screens. The well-paced movie was filled with jaw-dropping CGI kaiju scenes. Edwards also found cool ways of keeping them hidden in rubble, dust, or plain sight. By never giving us a chance to see Godzilla in his entirety until the very end, when we finally see him in his gargantuan form, the sense of scale is truly realized.
The film makers honored the franchise's legacy in the reboot, by keeping the themes of Japan's painful history of nuclear devastation. In keeping with the 1954 original, the tone was serious without being pretentious, preachy, or hokey. It found a really good balance of disaster-porn and escapist summer fun. Also, kudos for destroying Hawaii, Las Vegas, and San Francisco, instead of the usual suspects.
Another way it honored the past was through Alexandre Desplat's excellent score; a modern take while shouting out to (Godzilla's first composer) Akira Ifukube's use of horns and drums.
Besides the bad-ass/charming CGI'd King of the Monsters, the cast was strong and characters were not lazy cardboard cutouts. Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen led the way by chewing up the scenery, including two "earn your paycheck" moments. Aaron Taylor-Johnson was solid as kind of the main character.
Sadly, Ken Watanabe's English remained distractingly broken. Also, it was a bummer that the female actresses, Olsen and Juliette Binoche got minimal screen time.
As mentioned earlier, there was some clever shots of hidden monsters, although it did lead to some wonky movie physics. The fact that the monsters can pick and choose when their footsteps are silent or earth-shattering was implausible at times.
But my biggest issue was the tsunami scene, which borderlined on bad taste. Godzilla embodied nuclear allegories. A tsunami in Hawaii only conjured real-life imagery of Fukushima, Japan, and South Asia disasters, losing the escapist quality the rest of the movie possessed.
I had a blast watching Godzilla thanks to the deft use of IMAX 3D screens and embracing the franchise's baggage into this reboot.
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Viewed in
2014
Formats
IMAX 3D movie theater.
Premise
In this sequel, our heroes are a bit older, and Hiccup discovers a bigger world of dragon-riders and thieves.
Loved
Emotional family moments, some great 3D scenes.
Liked
Cute and fleshed-out dragon personalities.
Hated
Boring, lazy "Alpha" dragon politics.
Thoughts
A little bit of sequel-itis, but still a fun, heartfelt, spectacular revisit to memorable characters.
The first one, a classic, was pretty much about a boy and his dog, I mean, dragon. This time, the main focus was on Hiccup's family. The trailer already spoiled that he reunites with his long-lost mother, but the actual parental dynamics were supremely emotional. My favorite moment was when she confronted her husband for the first time, the guilt just poured out like a busted dam, and even thought I knew what he was going to say (also spoiled by the trailer), the impact hit powerfully and unexpectedly. The family reunion wasn't played just for plot either. I relished how the film makers took the time to just sit in on their conversations and re-acclamation.
(As an aside, I also liked this article pointing out how they wasted Hiccup's mom's character about halfway in, an interesting piece about token bad-ass female characters here.)
Attention to detail wasn't just spent on the human characters. Every scene, you could see the dragons' personalities shining through, even if they're in the background. It was a joy just to see fellow dragons frolicking in the distance, or Toothless having funny, uncomfortable interactions with stranger dragons from the Pandora-like haven.
While it wasn't as visually jaw-dropping as its predecessor, there were still some great moments, and the immersive 3D made the IMAX 3D presentation a borderline must-see. I really felt the snow kicking into my face, the infinite vastness of free space while flying, the Godzilla-like enormity of the "alpha" dragons, and the shock and awe of wooden forts frozen in an icy explosion. Words don't really do that last bit justice.
My biggest problem was getting bogged down in dragon politics. As Hiccup's world expanded, it was logical to introduce new dragon characters to Toothless to parallel his human partner. But it wasn't interesting, nor well-planned. There was a key scene when Toothless' actions was meant to be emotional, but the payoff never earned it due to a lazy plot device derived from "alpha" dragons. Toothless' lack of consequence and its quick resolution also exacerbated my disappointment.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 was a very good sequel, given the high expectations. There was an emotional story about family, and it brought something new to the table visually and mythological. I just wished they put more thought into the new characters (rumor has it the original story had the mother end up as the villain, and they changed minds during production, creating a new villain character, which might explain his blandness).
2014
Formats
IMAX 3D movie theater.
Premise
In this sequel, our heroes are a bit older, and Hiccup discovers a bigger world of dragon-riders and thieves.
Loved
Emotional family moments, some great 3D scenes.
Liked
Cute and fleshed-out dragon personalities.
Hated
Boring, lazy "Alpha" dragon politics.
Thoughts
A little bit of sequel-itis, but still a fun, heartfelt, spectacular revisit to memorable characters.
The first one, a classic, was pretty much about a boy and his dog, I mean, dragon. This time, the main focus was on Hiccup's family. The trailer already spoiled that he reunites with his long-lost mother, but the actual parental dynamics were supremely emotional. My favorite moment was when she confronted her husband for the first time, the guilt just poured out like a busted dam, and even thought I knew what he was going to say (also spoiled by the trailer), the impact hit powerfully and unexpectedly. The family reunion wasn't played just for plot either. I relished how the film makers took the time to just sit in on their conversations and re-acclamation.
(As an aside, I also liked this article pointing out how they wasted Hiccup's mom's character about halfway in, an interesting piece about token bad-ass female characters here.)
Attention to detail wasn't just spent on the human characters. Every scene, you could see the dragons' personalities shining through, even if they're in the background. It was a joy just to see fellow dragons frolicking in the distance, or Toothless having funny, uncomfortable interactions with stranger dragons from the Pandora-like haven.
While it wasn't as visually jaw-dropping as its predecessor, there were still some great moments, and the immersive 3D made the IMAX 3D presentation a borderline must-see. I really felt the snow kicking into my face, the infinite vastness of free space while flying, the Godzilla-like enormity of the "alpha" dragons, and the shock and awe of wooden forts frozen in an icy explosion. Words don't really do that last bit justice.
My biggest problem was getting bogged down in dragon politics. As Hiccup's world expanded, it was logical to introduce new dragon characters to Toothless to parallel his human partner. But it wasn't interesting, nor well-planned. There was a key scene when Toothless' actions was meant to be emotional, but the payoff never earned it due to a lazy plot device derived from "alpha" dragons. Toothless' lack of consequence and its quick resolution also exacerbated my disappointment.
How to Train Your Dragon 2 was a very good sequel, given the high expectations. There was an emotional story about family, and it brought something new to the table visually and mythological. I just wished they put more thought into the new characters (rumor has it the original story had the mother end up as the villain, and they changed minds during production, creating a new villain character, which might explain his blandness).
The Lego Movie
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater (3D).
Premise
A movie about Legos characters trying to stop a tyrant from segregating all the different genres/worlds.
Loved
Will Forte as Batman.
Liked
Funny writing, infectious energy.
Thoughts
A really fun movie for adults and kids!
My favorite part was the comedy, from absurdist (Liam Neeson the cop angrily kicking a chair for a whole minute), to inside-joke cameos (Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill 21 Jump Street reunion!), to silly (Batman being a complete idiot), to slightly dark (Batman's "dead parents" song), to creative fourth-wall breaking (human-made sound effects and ghostly characters dangling midair via strings).
Speaking of creative writing, I enjoyed the genre/universe mashups in the movie, similar to my childhood. Yes, there was a slight cynical synergy of using mostly Warner Brothers properties, but the writing still delivered funny interactions amongst Han Solo, Abraham Lincoln, astronauts, Ninja Turtles, and Batman.
This now marks the third paragraph mentioning Batman. That's because the caped plastic crusader, voiced brilliantly by Will Forte, stole the show with his cluelessness, arrogance, and selfishness.
I think kids would still enjoy the movie though. There was bright, silly characters running amok, and a very earwormy song in "Everything is AWESOME!!!". Interestingly, as the story plowed through, the song took on a double-meaning. It wasn't just a catchy song, but also highlighted the movie's themes of individuality, conforming, balancing both ends of the spectrum. Another strong theme present was the use of imagination.
The 3D was really good, with plenty of gratuitous shots of Legos pieces flying in your face, and was really well-integrated with the feeling of playing Legos in three dimensions.
Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller packed a lot of characters, comedy, themes, into the plot. Almost to the point of sensory overload. The pacing was haphazardly fast, jumping from world to world, gag to gag. Grantland's critic, Wesley Morris, had a good point about the lack of cohesion, as if the film makers were serving too many masters. But isn't that kind of the point when you make-believe with plastic toys?
Bottom line, The Lego Movie's messiness worked, thanks to a slew of goofy universes, characters, interactions, and of course, Batman.
2014
Formats
Movie theater (3D).
Premise
A movie about Legos characters trying to stop a tyrant from segregating all the different genres/worlds.
Loved
Will Forte as Batman.
Liked
Funny writing, infectious energy.
Thoughts
A really fun movie for adults and kids!
My favorite part was the comedy, from absurdist (Liam Neeson the cop angrily kicking a chair for a whole minute), to inside-joke cameos (Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill 21 Jump Street reunion!), to silly (Batman being a complete idiot), to slightly dark (Batman's "dead parents" song), to creative fourth-wall breaking (human-made sound effects and ghostly characters dangling midair via strings).
Speaking of creative writing, I enjoyed the genre/universe mashups in the movie, similar to my childhood. Yes, there was a slight cynical synergy of using mostly Warner Brothers properties, but the writing still delivered funny interactions amongst Han Solo, Abraham Lincoln, astronauts, Ninja Turtles, and Batman.
This now marks the third paragraph mentioning Batman. That's because the caped plastic crusader, voiced brilliantly by Will Forte, stole the show with his cluelessness, arrogance, and selfishness.
I think kids would still enjoy the movie though. There was bright, silly characters running amok, and a very earwormy song in "Everything is AWESOME!!!". Interestingly, as the story plowed through, the song took on a double-meaning. It wasn't just a catchy song, but also highlighted the movie's themes of individuality, conforming, balancing both ends of the spectrum. Another strong theme present was the use of imagination.
The 3D was really good, with plenty of gratuitous shots of Legos pieces flying in your face, and was really well-integrated with the feeling of playing Legos in three dimensions.
Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller packed a lot of characters, comedy, themes, into the plot. Almost to the point of sensory overload. The pacing was haphazardly fast, jumping from world to world, gag to gag. Grantland's critic, Wesley Morris, had a good point about the lack of cohesion, as if the film makers were serving too many masters. But isn't that kind of the point when you make-believe with plastic toys?
Bottom line, The Lego Movie's messiness worked, thanks to a slew of goofy universes, characters, interactions, and of course, Batman.
Muppets Most Wanted
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The Muppets are caught up in a European caper-switcheroo, where Kermit is thrown into a Russian gulag and a criminal lookalike leads the Muppets.
Loved
Ty Burrell and Sam the Eagle.
Liked
Tina Fey's hot accent, infinite cameos.
Disliked
Lack of heart.
Hated
Horribly obvious green-screens at the end.
Thoughts
A solid sequel to the Jason Segal revival. However, their song lyric admitting that the followup usually isn't better was a lame self-fulfilling prophecy.
The best, and funniest, parts went to the dynamic detective duo of Sam the Eagle and Ty Burrell (doing his best Inspector Clouseau impression). Their comedy chemistry was so good, I almost wanted a spinoff. While most of the songs weren't as memorable or inspired as the 2011 entry, their "Interrogation Song" was brilliant.
Another knee-slapper of a song was "I'll Get You What You Want", sung by the bad frog, Constantine, as he seduced Miss Piggy. The other newcomers were welcome additions. Ricky Gervais was solid as Constantine's right hand man. Meanwhile, in Siberia, there were lots of fun goofy Gulag moments with Tina Fey, Ray Liotta (surprisingly adorably goofy) and Danny Trejo (but where's his "wacka wacka" scene from the trailer?). Is it me, or was Fey (already an attractive actress) super-hot in her gulag guard uniform and heavy accent?
In addition to these familiar faces, the movie had tons of cameos. I've seen plenty of throwaway lines, but I'd never seen throwaway cameos before.
So aside from the less memorable songs, another missing aspect of the underwhelming sequel was the lack of Jason Segal and Amy Adams. Not because of their star power, but because they (and Walter) brought the heart to the franchise. Without them, the story was meh. It was just a silly string of sequences that required a hard suspension of disbelief that only Animal knew Kermit was a "bad frog!"
Lastly, the visual effects in "Together Again" finale? Eesh.
Muppets Most Wanted got good comedy mileage thanks to Sam and Eagle and Ty Burrell, Tina Fey and other familiar faces. However, the vacuous story will make it not as appealing of a re-watch.
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
The Muppets are caught up in a European caper-switcheroo, where Kermit is thrown into a Russian gulag and a criminal lookalike leads the Muppets.
Loved
Ty Burrell and Sam the Eagle.
Liked
Tina Fey's hot accent, infinite cameos.
Disliked
Lack of heart.
Hated
Horribly obvious green-screens at the end.
Thoughts
A solid sequel to the Jason Segal revival. However, their song lyric admitting that the followup usually isn't better was a lame self-fulfilling prophecy.
The best, and funniest, parts went to the dynamic detective duo of Sam the Eagle and Ty Burrell (doing his best Inspector Clouseau impression). Their comedy chemistry was so good, I almost wanted a spinoff. While most of the songs weren't as memorable or inspired as the 2011 entry, their "Interrogation Song" was brilliant.
Another knee-slapper of a song was "I'll Get You What You Want", sung by the bad frog, Constantine, as he seduced Miss Piggy. The other newcomers were welcome additions. Ricky Gervais was solid as Constantine's right hand man. Meanwhile, in Siberia, there were lots of fun goofy Gulag moments with Tina Fey, Ray Liotta (surprisingly adorably goofy) and Danny Trejo (but where's his "wacka wacka" scene from the trailer?). Is it me, or was Fey (already an attractive actress) super-hot in her gulag guard uniform and heavy accent?
In addition to these familiar faces, the movie had tons of cameos. I've seen plenty of throwaway lines, but I'd never seen throwaway cameos before.
So aside from the less memorable songs, another missing aspect of the underwhelming sequel was the lack of Jason Segal and Amy Adams. Not because of their star power, but because they (and Walter) brought the heart to the franchise. Without them, the story was meh. It was just a silly string of sequences that required a hard suspension of disbelief that only Animal knew Kermit was a "bad frog!"
Lastly, the visual effects in "Together Again" finale? Eesh.
Muppets Most Wanted got good comedy mileage thanks to Sam and Eagle and Ty Burrell, Tina Fey and other familiar faces. However, the vacuous story will make it not as appealing of a re-watch.
300: Rise of an Empire
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
A prequel to 300? A sequel? A supplementary?
Loved
Eva Green.
Liked
Stylish action.
Disliked
Confusing story-telling.
Hated
The ridiculous concept of female war wardrobe.
Thoughts
As far as brainless, expensive-looking action flicks go, it was pretty average.
The best part was Eva Green. Just a complete bad ass, and made for a very root-worthy villain. More than a pretty face, she grabbed the screen by the balls and sold every bombastic minute with zest.
As expected, the violence was gratuitously bloody. In fact, so much digital crimson flooded the frame, it was almost comical, harking back to 1980's gushers with cartoony usage of blood packs. Also expected were gratuitous slow-motion and "one-take" action sequences, and CGI abs. Unfortunately, most of this movie's style lacked the novelty feel from the first one.
I give it some creative credit for having most of the action take place on the high seas. If people were uppity about the buoyancy of dwarves in barrels from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I'd be curious about their reaction to the scene of a horseback warrior galloping from ship-to-sea-to-ship.
In addition to the "been there, seen that" aspect, the flaws were numerous. I couldn't tell the shirtless Greeks apart, the subplots were boring, the pretentious speeches of nothingness weren't even laughably bad, and the prologue was confusing. In fact, the most confusing part was its ever-shifting perspective. Who was I supposed to root for? Green? The indistinguishable Greeks? The grieving Spartans?
Last two amusing points. I found it ironic that even though it had two "bad ass" women, it still failed the Bechdel Test. Also, I realize a lot of the movie was implausible, but the fact that Green had a wardrobe change every scene really made me shake my head. She's away from home, on a battlefield, and yet had enough time and trunk to store all these ridiculous outfits? Having said that, here spiny-back dress was awesome.
Despite Eva Green's presence and some interesting water-based warfare, 300: Rise of an Empire just felt long for a hundred-minute epic slash-em-up.
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
A prequel to 300? A sequel? A supplementary?
Loved
Eva Green.
Liked
Stylish action.
Disliked
Confusing story-telling.
Hated
The ridiculous concept of female war wardrobe.
Thoughts
As far as brainless, expensive-looking action flicks go, it was pretty average.
The best part was Eva Green. Just a complete bad ass, and made for a very root-worthy villain. More than a pretty face, she grabbed the screen by the balls and sold every bombastic minute with zest.
As expected, the violence was gratuitously bloody. In fact, so much digital crimson flooded the frame, it was almost comical, harking back to 1980's gushers with cartoony usage of blood packs. Also expected were gratuitous slow-motion and "one-take" action sequences, and CGI abs. Unfortunately, most of this movie's style lacked the novelty feel from the first one.
I give it some creative credit for having most of the action take place on the high seas. If people were uppity about the buoyancy of dwarves in barrels from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, I'd be curious about their reaction to the scene of a horseback warrior galloping from ship-to-sea-to-ship.
Last two amusing points. I found it ironic that even though it had two "bad ass" women, it still failed the Bechdel Test. Also, I realize a lot of the movie was implausible, but the fact that Green had a wardrobe change every scene really made me shake my head. She's away from home, on a battlefield, and yet had enough time and trunk to store all these ridiculous outfits? Having said that, here spiny-back dress was awesome.
Despite Eva Green's presence and some interesting water-based warfare, 300: Rise of an Empire just felt long for a hundred-minute epic slash-em-up.
22 Jump Street
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel to 21 Jump Street, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill go undercover as college kids to foil a drug dealer.
Loved
Ice Cube/Jillian Bell subplots, tripping out scene, silly credits.
Liked
Tatum, Hill, funny dialog.
Disliked
Flat first thirty minutes, too many meta-jokes.
Thoughts
Pretty good sequel, especially the last two-thirds.
As expected, the two leads were charming and fully committed to the smartly-stupid comedy. Tatum's cluelessness was on full tilt, with a fun bromance with the college quarterback. Meanwhile, Hill's character didn't get interesting until a gut-busting subplot involving captain Ice Cube (a subplot I should've seen coming a mile away).
Aside from Cube, the other actor who stole the show was Jillian Bell, as a hilariously bizarre schoolmate who ninja's Hill's character. Then she got even more bonkers in the Spring Break climax of the story. Amber Stevens, as Hill's romantic subplot, was sweet and likable. Some familiar faces from the first movie to bring in some laughs, mainly Nick Offerman. Patton Oswalt and Seth Rogen also pitch in funny cameos.
While the middle and endings had some laugh-out-loud moments, the first third was oddly slow. I can't put on my finger why. For some the reason, the jokes fell flat until Tatum and Hill were in college and accidentally trip on the very drugs they were chasing. After that, the comedy kicked into high gear for the rest of the movie. Shout out to the Benny Hill joke.
Compared to the first movie, this was about 87% as good. While the predecessor also had meta-jokes about reboots, this one had one too many self-conscious digs about itself. Much like Muppets Most Wanted, the winking jabs about sequel inferiority simply didn't make me laugh. Having said that, the ending credits of all the future titles in the franchise cracked me up more than I admit. Like most sequels, it lacked the novelty factor and story/character arcs.
Even since Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have been on a comedic roll, and 22 Jump Street continued the streak. It might not take you by surprise and flip things on its head, but thanks to charming leads, hilarious subplots, and energetic laughs (after the first third), it nimbly avoided a sophomore slump.
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
In the sequel to 21 Jump Street, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill go undercover as college kids to foil a drug dealer.
Loved
Ice Cube/Jillian Bell subplots, tripping out scene, silly credits.
Liked
Tatum, Hill, funny dialog.
Disliked
Flat first thirty minutes, too many meta-jokes.
Thoughts
Pretty good sequel, especially the last two-thirds.
As expected, the two leads were charming and fully committed to the smartly-stupid comedy. Tatum's cluelessness was on full tilt, with a fun bromance with the college quarterback. Meanwhile, Hill's character didn't get interesting until a gut-busting subplot involving captain Ice Cube (a subplot I should've seen coming a mile away).
Aside from Cube, the other actor who stole the show was Jillian Bell, as a hilariously bizarre schoolmate who ninja's Hill's character. Then she got even more bonkers in the Spring Break climax of the story. Amber Stevens, as Hill's romantic subplot, was sweet and likable. Some familiar faces from the first movie to bring in some laughs, mainly Nick Offerman. Patton Oswalt and Seth Rogen also pitch in funny cameos.
While the middle and endings had some laugh-out-loud moments, the first third was oddly slow. I can't put on my finger why. For some the reason, the jokes fell flat until Tatum and Hill were in college and accidentally trip on the very drugs they were chasing. After that, the comedy kicked into high gear for the rest of the movie. Shout out to the Benny Hill joke.
Compared to the first movie, this was about 87% as good. While the predecessor also had meta-jokes about reboots, this one had one too many self-conscious digs about itself. Much like Muppets Most Wanted, the winking jabs about sequel inferiority simply didn't make me laugh. Having said that, the ending credits of all the future titles in the franchise cracked me up more than I admit. Like most sequels, it lacked the novelty factor and story/character arcs.
Even since Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have been on a comedic roll, and 22 Jump Street continued the streak. It might not take you by surprise and flip things on its head, but thanks to charming leads, hilarious subplots, and energetic laughs (after the first third), it nimbly avoided a sophomore slump.
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Viewed in
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Based on the X-Men comics, mutants from a dystopian future send Wolverine back to the 1970's to change the course of history, starring pretty much everyone from ALL the previous movies.
Loved
Mega-X-Men reunion, Magneto.
Liked
Solid time-travel story.
Disliked
Too many characters, lack of heart.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed it.
The best part about the movie was seeing so many familiar faces all in one story. Obviously, not everyone got their moment in the spotlight. But even in fleeting flashbacks or cameo, it just added to the coolness and nostalgia of everything (good and bad) since the very first Bryan Singer entry back in 2000.
Even given their limited screen time (the film is a brisk 130 minutes), the cast was fantastic and well-cast. Michael Fassbender stole the show again, even against another great screen presence in her royal Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence. He just reminds you why you don't mess with Magneto. While there was more plot than pathos, James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart knocked their time-bending tete-a-tete out of the park.
Story-wise, it was strong. The butterfly effect of time-travel logic was pretty easy to follow. I don't feel like it necessarily pooh-poohed all the previous X-Men movies with a massive retcon reset, it's just a different timeline. I also liked the funny Quicksilver subplot, which definitely added some cheeky levity to the epic.
For the most part, I was in favor of the brisk pace of the movie, not bogging itself down to explain every mutant's powers. However, the large menagerie of characters and time-travel elements did lead to some confusion. Like why did Wolverine lack adamantium when he went back in time? How did Kitty Pryde gain conscience-time-traveling powers? What the hell was Bishop's special ability?
Basically, just know who are the major players, and the rest is set decoration. Though I must say that it was exhilarating to see Blink's mutant powers fully realized on the big screen.
Comparing it to X-Men: First Class, it lacked the character development and heart of the first prequel-ish trilogy. You'd think there would be plenty of emotional baggage from Xavier's and Magneto's fallout, but I frankly didn't feel much in Days of Future Past.
It sucked that twice Kitty Pryde had been shunned from being the main character as originally told. But I totally understand the economics of spotlighting Hugh Jackman and Jennifer Lawrence, and the writing was strong enough not to just shoehorn them in. But it was still disappointing that the movie franchise didn't reflect the diverse, compelling female characters from the comic book universe.
As a fan of the comics, animated series, and movies, X-Men: Days of Future Past was another strong entry in the franchise. The cast reunion factor brought all sorts of tingly nostalgic feelings. In addition, the cast was superb, especially Fassbender, the story was solid, and action was well-paced.
2014
Formats
Movie theater.
Premise
Based on the X-Men comics, mutants from a dystopian future send Wolverine back to the 1970's to change the course of history, starring pretty much everyone from ALL the previous movies.
Loved
Mega-X-Men reunion, Magneto.
Liked
Solid time-travel story.
Disliked
Too many characters, lack of heart.
Thoughts
I really enjoyed it.
The best part about the movie was seeing so many familiar faces all in one story. Obviously, not everyone got their moment in the spotlight. But even in fleeting flashbacks or cameo, it just added to the coolness and nostalgia of everything (good and bad) since the very first Bryan Singer entry back in 2000.
Even given their limited screen time (the film is a brisk 130 minutes), the cast was fantastic and well-cast. Michael Fassbender stole the show again, even against another great screen presence in her royal Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence. He just reminds you why you don't mess with Magneto. While there was more plot than pathos, James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart knocked their time-bending tete-a-tete out of the park.
Story-wise, it was strong. The butterfly effect of time-travel logic was pretty easy to follow. I don't feel like it necessarily pooh-poohed all the previous X-Men movies with a massive retcon reset, it's just a different timeline. I also liked the funny Quicksilver subplot, which definitely added some cheeky levity to the epic.
For the most part, I was in favor of the brisk pace of the movie, not bogging itself down to explain every mutant's powers. However, the large menagerie of characters and time-travel elements did lead to some confusion. Like why did Wolverine lack adamantium when he went back in time? How did Kitty Pryde gain conscience-time-traveling powers? What the hell was Bishop's special ability?
Basically, just know who are the major players, and the rest is set decoration. Though I must say that it was exhilarating to see Blink's mutant powers fully realized on the big screen.
Comparing it to X-Men: First Class, it lacked the character development and heart of the first prequel-ish trilogy. You'd think there would be plenty of emotional baggage from Xavier's and Magneto's fallout, but I frankly didn't feel much in Days of Future Past.
It sucked that twice Kitty Pryde had been shunned from being the main character as originally told. But I totally understand the economics of spotlighting Hugh Jackman and Jennifer Lawrence, and the writing was strong enough not to just shoehorn them in. But it was still disappointing that the movie franchise didn't reflect the diverse, compelling female characters from the comic book universe.
As a fan of the comics, animated series, and movies, X-Men: Days of Future Past was another strong entry in the franchise. The cast reunion factor brought all sorts of tingly nostalgic feelings. In addition, the cast was superb, especially Fassbender, the story was solid, and action was well-paced.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)