Fun. From the moment the film started I had fun by the clip. And there were alot of clips expended in this movie. They got the entire band back together for the sequel to 2010's action extravaganza and much to my surprize, it got better. There was some sembelance of a plot, even a modacam of character development. I had a blast.
The action pacing was good, most of the characters, of which there were quite a few, got a descent bit of camera time and the writing was actually not bad. The snarky nature of the dialouge in the film felt much more organic in the sequel than in the original. It felt more like they were all old friends pulling one liners and joking on each other like old college friends. New additions to the cast, Liam Hemsworth and Chuck Norris felt right at home in their respective roles. The expanded roles of Schwarzenegger and Willis rounded out the cast quite well and somewhat made up for their cameo roles in the previous film.
Now back to the fun. The body count was higher, they were even more wasteful with the ammunition, there were tanks, and gratuitious use of Hale Ceasar's AA-12 automatic shotgun. There was Jason Statham kicking peoples asses quite litterally, all over the place. There was Stallone being well, a combination of Rambo and Rocky. And Chuck Norris stole the show during his small but influential scenes. I haven't had more fun since, well, I can't remember it right now, but it's been a LONG time.
Was this movie as good as The Avengers or TDKR? NO WAY. Was it as fun as the action scenes at the end of The Avengers? Close, very close. There is just something very pleasing about watching well known action stars getting together and doing it ALOT. In that way it's a lot like The Avengers, all the well known heroes you know all come together for a big hurrah. And just like The Avengers it just plain works.
Go see it with Dad. I did.
The Expendables 2 74 out of 100
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Sunday, August 5, 2012
The Amazing Spiderman
The Amazing Spiderman
Only ten years after Sam Rami began his Spiderman Trilogy we are offered Marc Webb's (ironic right?) series reboot. The main question I have walking out of the theatre is this: Did we really need a reboot of Spiderman?
Lets get this out of the way right now, I liked the movie. But it wasn't quite as good as Spiderman.
Garfield's Spiderman is a bit different from the boyish Tobey Maguire, and he needs to be to handle the arduous task he is given throughout the film. Maguire's Spiderman was an out of place high school student just trying to make it out of high school any better than he came in. Garfield knows something is different about him, and it's not until his spider-bite induced super-prowess that he can fully fulfil his destiny. Garfield is a different Spiderman than Maguire and that's not a bad thing. The Amazing Spiderman deals more with Peter Parkers past than any of Rami's trio. That being said Garfield nailed the questioning, cocky, and driven Parker of The Amazing Spiderman.
I loved Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey. I love Emma Stone. I found myself thinking during the movie, "This seems more like the type of girl Peter Parker would go for." No offense to Kirsten Dunst but Stone's witty Stacey is far more of an equal to Parker than Dunst's gorgeous but doeish damsel in distress. I was happy to see the same Dennis Leary I know and love from Rescue Me. Captain Stacey feels as though he was written just for Leary.
Uncle Ben and Aunt May are the grounding force for Parker in The Amazing Spiderman. Martin Sheen was a great choice for Uncle Ben, and felt more like a father to Parker than the more grandfather like Cliff Robertson from Spider-man. Meanwhile I felt like the relationship between Garfield and Sally Fields' Aunt May wasn't nearly as sweet or organic as Rosemary Harris'. Sally Fields in my opinion just failed to make me feel as close to her as I did to Sheen's Uncle Ben.
I feel as though the plot was almost rushed to get to the conflict. It seems as if it just reared it's ugly head as opposed to the setups given in the other films. And that gets me to the biggest problem with this film. It's so hard to see this film and NOT compare it to Sam Rami's excellent Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. I leave out Spiderman 3 as it is easily the weakest of the Trilogy.
Visually however The Amazing Spiderman is brilliant. This film was shot in the new 4k x 2k standard offering nearly 4 times the resolution of the current 1080p HD resolution. The results literally must be seen to believe. While I didn't care as much for the POV shots used in the film the contrasting wide angle shots looked phenomenal. It wasn't until one scene towards the end of the film that I really began to care about Spiderman, I didn't want him to fail. I found myself getting slightly emotional. It was late in the movie to feel that, but better late than never.
James Horner's score was good but not quite as expressive as Elfman's original Spider-Man. It wasn't over the top but almost blended TOO well into certain scenes.
All in all the movie was enjoyable but not exceptional with the exception being the visuals, mostly thanks to the next gen 4k x 2k hi def wizardry.
The Amazing Spiderman 79 out of 100
Only ten years after Sam Rami began his Spiderman Trilogy we are offered Marc Webb's (ironic right?) series reboot. The main question I have walking out of the theatre is this: Did we really need a reboot of Spiderman?
Lets get this out of the way right now, I liked the movie. But it wasn't quite as good as Spiderman.
Garfield's Spiderman is a bit different from the boyish Tobey Maguire, and he needs to be to handle the arduous task he is given throughout the film. Maguire's Spiderman was an out of place high school student just trying to make it out of high school any better than he came in. Garfield knows something is different about him, and it's not until his spider-bite induced super-prowess that he can fully fulfil his destiny. Garfield is a different Spiderman than Maguire and that's not a bad thing. The Amazing Spiderman deals more with Peter Parkers past than any of Rami's trio. That being said Garfield nailed the questioning, cocky, and driven Parker of The Amazing Spiderman.
I loved Emma Stone's Gwen Stacey. I love Emma Stone. I found myself thinking during the movie, "This seems more like the type of girl Peter Parker would go for." No offense to Kirsten Dunst but Stone's witty Stacey is far more of an equal to Parker than Dunst's gorgeous but doeish damsel in distress. I was happy to see the same Dennis Leary I know and love from Rescue Me. Captain Stacey feels as though he was written just for Leary.
Uncle Ben and Aunt May are the grounding force for Parker in The Amazing Spiderman. Martin Sheen was a great choice for Uncle Ben, and felt more like a father to Parker than the more grandfather like Cliff Robertson from Spider-man. Meanwhile I felt like the relationship between Garfield and Sally Fields' Aunt May wasn't nearly as sweet or organic as Rosemary Harris'. Sally Fields in my opinion just failed to make me feel as close to her as I did to Sheen's Uncle Ben.
I feel as though the plot was almost rushed to get to the conflict. It seems as if it just reared it's ugly head as opposed to the setups given in the other films. And that gets me to the biggest problem with this film. It's so hard to see this film and NOT compare it to Sam Rami's excellent Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. I leave out Spiderman 3 as it is easily the weakest of the Trilogy.
Visually however The Amazing Spiderman is brilliant. This film was shot in the new 4k x 2k standard offering nearly 4 times the resolution of the current 1080p HD resolution. The results literally must be seen to believe. While I didn't care as much for the POV shots used in the film the contrasting wide angle shots looked phenomenal. It wasn't until one scene towards the end of the film that I really began to care about Spiderman, I didn't want him to fail. I found myself getting slightly emotional. It was late in the movie to feel that, but better late than never.
James Horner's score was good but not quite as expressive as Elfman's original Spider-Man. It wasn't over the top but almost blended TOO well into certain scenes.
All in all the movie was enjoyable but not exceptional with the exception being the visuals, mostly thanks to the next gen 4k x 2k hi def wizardry.
The Amazing Spiderman 79 out of 100
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises
The Dark Knight Rises
Simply put was the best film I've seen in a LONG time. Christopher Nolan finished his Dark Knight Trilogy with a masterful stroke. So far I've seen this film twice, both times being in the simply amazing IMAX presentation. I wouldn't put it past me to see it again. Yes folks, it's that good.
The thing that most impressed me with the film was the story. The writing may have been the best of the three. The acting, while not on the level of The Dark Knight, was superb. Some people have found the story slightly hard to follow, I have to disagree. I'm currently watching Lost (again) and it's far easier to follow TDKR. There are a few somewhat difficult spots but nothing that watching the first two films wouldn't clear up. My single largest gripe with the film is simply that the film was shot in two different cities and neither of those is Chicago (Gotham City in the first two films). And that's it, I do understand WHY this was done, however it remains my ONLY gripe.
Plot pacing was great, Hans Zimmers score may have been his best work in film to date, Wally Pfisters cinematography was stunning, and Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was wonderful. This film is a text book action film with a genuine story.
Nolan said that each of the Dark Knight films deals with a different concept. The concept at the heart of TDKR is Pain and there was certainly alot of pain dealt to the denizens of Gotham throughout the film. From Commissioner Gordon's pain over the cancerous secret he has held for 8 years since The Dark Knight, to Alfred's pain over leaving Bruce Wayne to the suffering administered to Batman by Bane, even to the constant pain that Bane felt with every breath.
Bane was a prefect villain to finish out the Trilogy because he was a physical as well as cerebral match for Batman. When Bane fights Batman he's supposed to win. Bane is stronger, tougher and more brutal than Batman. And unlike the Bane from the dismal Batman & Robin Tom Hardy's is tenacious AND intellegent. I felt he had the most difficult acting assignment of the film having to rely almost exclusively on his eyes and gestures to portray the menacing mercenary.
Emotion is one word that I can't help but using to describe TDKR. Pain, relief and sorrow are woven throught the fabric of the film. There's also the action. WOW. The action sequences in this film were almost as good as those in The Avengers. The scope of the action in TDKR is not lost in the IMAX film transfer. Quite possibly the best part of the action sequences is the spectacular score delivered by Hans Zimmer. Zimmers score is the perfect seasoning to any cinematic indulgence. He's never too over the top, never too weak. He is always just the right ammount of sweet, savory and bitter.
I could go on talking about the film but i'll stop here. Because instead of reading this any more you need to go out and see this movie. For if you have you like me want to go watch it again....
The Dark Knight Rises 93 out of 100.
Superb.
Simply put was the best film I've seen in a LONG time. Christopher Nolan finished his Dark Knight Trilogy with a masterful stroke. So far I've seen this film twice, both times being in the simply amazing IMAX presentation. I wouldn't put it past me to see it again. Yes folks, it's that good.
The thing that most impressed me with the film was the story. The writing may have been the best of the three. The acting, while not on the level of The Dark Knight, was superb. Some people have found the story slightly hard to follow, I have to disagree. I'm currently watching Lost (again) and it's far easier to follow TDKR. There are a few somewhat difficult spots but nothing that watching the first two films wouldn't clear up. My single largest gripe with the film is simply that the film was shot in two different cities and neither of those is Chicago (Gotham City in the first two films). And that's it, I do understand WHY this was done, however it remains my ONLY gripe.
Plot pacing was great, Hans Zimmers score may have been his best work in film to date, Wally Pfisters cinematography was stunning, and Anne Hathaway's Catwoman was wonderful. This film is a text book action film with a genuine story.
Nolan said that each of the Dark Knight films deals with a different concept. The concept at the heart of TDKR is Pain and there was certainly alot of pain dealt to the denizens of Gotham throughout the film. From Commissioner Gordon's pain over the cancerous secret he has held for 8 years since The Dark Knight, to Alfred's pain over leaving Bruce Wayne to the suffering administered to Batman by Bane, even to the constant pain that Bane felt with every breath.
Bane was a prefect villain to finish out the Trilogy because he was a physical as well as cerebral match for Batman. When Bane fights Batman he's supposed to win. Bane is stronger, tougher and more brutal than Batman. And unlike the Bane from the dismal Batman & Robin Tom Hardy's is tenacious AND intellegent. I felt he had the most difficult acting assignment of the film having to rely almost exclusively on his eyes and gestures to portray the menacing mercenary.
Emotion is one word that I can't help but using to describe TDKR. Pain, relief and sorrow are woven throught the fabric of the film. There's also the action. WOW. The action sequences in this film were almost as good as those in The Avengers. The scope of the action in TDKR is not lost in the IMAX film transfer. Quite possibly the best part of the action sequences is the spectacular score delivered by Hans Zimmer. Zimmers score is the perfect seasoning to any cinematic indulgence. He's never too over the top, never too weak. He is always just the right ammount of sweet, savory and bitter.
I could go on talking about the film but i'll stop here. Because instead of reading this any more you need to go out and see this movie. For if you have you like me want to go watch it again....
The Dark Knight Rises 93 out of 100.
Superb.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Prometheus
I promise there won't be any spoilers in this revue. I also promise to be upfront with you on one thing. Prometheus IS NOT a prequel to Ridley Scott's 1979 Alien. However what it does do is sets up not only a sequel to itself, but it also forms the framework for the Alien series.
Prometheus is set in the near future and does well not to make the viewer feel completely out of touch with it. Much like Blade Runner, the future and the forces behind it are all to familiar to us in the present day. The main theme is not one unfamiliar to cinema, why and more recently how are we here. While Scott gives us one possible answer to that question he also does well enough to leave it open ended enough for many possible conclusions to be drawn. But philosophical arguments aside, lets get down to it.
Scott reminds us of how he changed this genre in the first place with Prometheus. Excellent camera work, sweeping landscape shots and claustrophobia inspiring tight ones keep you from getting too settled in your seat. Haunting interior and beautiful, yet alien exteriors provide excellent contrast in the film along with the medical grade sterility of the ship Prometheus itself. Camerawork was excellent and the use of 3ality's (James Cameron's Avatar co-conspirators) 3-D camera technology resulted in one of the least hokey and smoothest film uses I have seen thus far. The vision of the movie was never lost on special effects or slow motion camera work as in some recent films. This film was made in a old school way using new school tricks designed to make it feel real, not extraordinary.
Casting was superb. Simply put, every actor carried their weight, and with the possible exception of Noomi Rapace, no one "stole the show" so to speak. Noomi's child like Shaw and Charlize Theron's Vickers served as a perfect hot and cold balance between curiosity and guarded isolationism that is sciences love affair with extraterrestrials. There is in particular one scene with Rapace which left me almost breathless. I'd tell you all about it, but... yeah i'll just make you go watch it for yourself. Michael Fassbender (who apparently has been in half of the movies released this year) plays perhaps the most interesting role of the film and serves as the android David. The quirks of an artificial life form are not lost on Mr. Fassbender who will leave you guessing as to what his true motives are up until the final frame of the film. I particularly liked Idris Elbas Captian Janek, who perhaps most embodies my own feelings about the discovery of life on other planets. Janek had a scene with Vickers halfway through the movie that shows the humanity (and humility) of the two.
The writing was very good and pacing was spot on. Damon Lindelof (of Lost fame) helped flesh out the characters and made it so no characters were particularly flat or well... cannon fodder (hopefully that isn't too telling). While it's hard to completely place the film in either the horror or action genre, it is definetly one thing, terrific science fiction. The music was good, not too ominious yet just the right ammount of suspense.
All in all the film was SOLID. It's hard for me to find much about the film that I didn't like. That being said it wasn't perfect. There were some scenes that i felt needed either more lead up or more follow through. Some of the departures were less than dramatic (lets be real folks, alot of people did not make it). Action and suspense were in wonderful balance with plot twists and holy &%$@ moments. Ridley scot has reminded us once again why he is a fantastic film maker.
Prometheus - Overall Score (1-100) 83
Prometheus is set in the near future and does well not to make the viewer feel completely out of touch with it. Much like Blade Runner, the future and the forces behind it are all to familiar to us in the present day. The main theme is not one unfamiliar to cinema, why and more recently how are we here. While Scott gives us one possible answer to that question he also does well enough to leave it open ended enough for many possible conclusions to be drawn. But philosophical arguments aside, lets get down to it.
Scott reminds us of how he changed this genre in the first place with Prometheus. Excellent camera work, sweeping landscape shots and claustrophobia inspiring tight ones keep you from getting too settled in your seat. Haunting interior and beautiful, yet alien exteriors provide excellent contrast in the film along with the medical grade sterility of the ship Prometheus itself. Camerawork was excellent and the use of 3ality's (James Cameron's Avatar co-conspirators) 3-D camera technology resulted in one of the least hokey and smoothest film uses I have seen thus far. The vision of the movie was never lost on special effects or slow motion camera work as in some recent films. This film was made in a old school way using new school tricks designed to make it feel real, not extraordinary.
Casting was superb. Simply put, every actor carried their weight, and with the possible exception of Noomi Rapace, no one "stole the show" so to speak. Noomi's child like Shaw and Charlize Theron's Vickers served as a perfect hot and cold balance between curiosity and guarded isolationism that is sciences love affair with extraterrestrials. There is in particular one scene with Rapace which left me almost breathless. I'd tell you all about it, but... yeah i'll just make you go watch it for yourself. Michael Fassbender (who apparently has been in half of the movies released this year) plays perhaps the most interesting role of the film and serves as the android David. The quirks of an artificial life form are not lost on Mr. Fassbender who will leave you guessing as to what his true motives are up until the final frame of the film. I particularly liked Idris Elbas Captian Janek, who perhaps most embodies my own feelings about the discovery of life on other planets. Janek had a scene with Vickers halfway through the movie that shows the humanity (and humility) of the two.
The writing was very good and pacing was spot on. Damon Lindelof (of Lost fame) helped flesh out the characters and made it so no characters were particularly flat or well... cannon fodder (hopefully that isn't too telling). While it's hard to completely place the film in either the horror or action genre, it is definetly one thing, terrific science fiction. The music was good, not too ominious yet just the right ammount of suspense.
All in all the film was SOLID. It's hard for me to find much about the film that I didn't like. That being said it wasn't perfect. There were some scenes that i felt needed either more lead up or more follow through. Some of the departures were less than dramatic (lets be real folks, alot of people did not make it). Action and suspense were in wonderful balance with plot twists and holy &%$@ moments. Ridley scot has reminded us once again why he is a fantastic film maker.
Prometheus - Overall Score (1-100) 83
Saturday, May 5, 2012
The Avengers
Before I begin this review I must admit some biases that have slightly affected my review of this particular film. I am a huge fan of Jon Favreau's Iron Man and it's sequel, Joss Wheadon and comic book movies in general. I will endeavour to maintain a non-biased review as best I can.
The Avengers is billed as this summers first blockbuster offering in a year filled with top contenders. The set up for the film stretches untold pages of comics as well as 6 feature length films. A group of individual heroes rises to combat an evil army from the great beyond. Doesn't seem so original when you spell it out like that, does it? The difference here is that the characters in The Avengers are all larger than life concoctions from the minds of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Joss Wheadon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Serenity, Dollhouse) had the herculean task of writing a script that gave each character the chance to shine not only in a narrative and character development light, but in the films many action sequences. Wheadon's experience writing for ensemble casts no doubt gave him a leg up on other would-be suitors for the reigns of the estimated $220 million Avengers.
The cast for this movie was a financial gamble. Utilizing Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paul Bettany, Stellen Skarsgard, Clark Gregg, and Tom Hiddelston in one films budget was daunting enough. I only omit Mark Ruffalo because he was in neither of the previous Hulk films. Writing them all meaningful roles and functions within the film was quite another.
Tom Hiddelston must be given consideration being he was dealing with 4 super heroes and held his own from an acting perspective.
I feel that the movie was fairly well paced without being too pushy. While the action scenes move the plot forward, it's the dialogue scenes that draw in the viewer. Back story takes a slight backseat to the action, but in a good way. With 6 feature films before it, explaining much of the initial character introduction is mostly bypassed. This allows Wheadon to focus on the true meat and potatoes for the film, the actual relationships between the heroes.
The story focuses on the journey from very distant characters to a cohesive fighting force by the films climax. I keep drawing parallels between The Avengers and X-Men in that both are ensemble cast films. I feel that the former does a better job of distributing the acting load while the former relied almost too heavily on Hugh Jackman. The cast of The Avengers started farther apart and ends up rounding out their alter ego's much more cleanly than Singer's X-Men. The characters end up working through their differences after each experiencing a personal moment of self doubt. In this we see the humanity behind each of their heroic facades.
Wheadon's distinct cinematic style is not lost on The Avengers. POV camera angles, fast cuts during fights, and lots of non-steadycam shots add a gritty feel to the otherwise well polished cinematography. The version of the film I saw was the 3-D IMAX version of the film. Scenes during the climatic final battle and of the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier benefited from the extra scope offered by IMAX's enhanced aspect ratio. The 3-D effects were well done and not over the top as in some films.
While you won't necessarily miss out on much by seeing the non-3d version of the film, I do recommend it.
Alan Silvestri's score added some emotional depth to the film while not overpowering the audience. I felt going into the film that I would miss the enthralling John Debney score from Iron Man 2 but it just didn't happen. The actual plot of the movie wasn't ever brought to the forefront because in true comic style it frankly wasn't as important as the action, dialogue and themes of the material.
Some of my favorite moments of the film were the comic relief that Wheadon wrote into some of the films tenser moments. Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark provided a good counter to Evan's dogooder Captain American. The relationship between Agent Romanoff and Agent Barton was a nice subplot, and quite frankly something I hope there is more of in the directors cut, rumored to be near 30 minutes longer. Ruffalo's Banner I felt needed some time to get going but the Hulk managed to steal the screen. Hemsworth and Hiddelston continued the chemistry from Thor and added perhaps even more depth.
While The Avengers was not a perfect film it's high points glossed over the films few flaws. I thoroughly enjoyed the film from beginning to end, it was just plain fun. If you want a movie for deep discussion rewatch Fight Club or The Matrix. If you want to see the bad guys get beat and the heroes drop one liners with aplomb see The Avengers. All in all Joss Wheadon's writing, a tremendous cast and spectacular visuals combine like The Avengers characters themselves to create something better than it's individual components.
The Avengers - Overall rating (1-100) 88
The Avengers is billed as this summers first blockbuster offering in a year filled with top contenders. The set up for the film stretches untold pages of comics as well as 6 feature length films. A group of individual heroes rises to combat an evil army from the great beyond. Doesn't seem so original when you spell it out like that, does it? The difference here is that the characters in The Avengers are all larger than life concoctions from the minds of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Joss Wheadon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Serenity, Dollhouse) had the herculean task of writing a script that gave each character the chance to shine not only in a narrative and character development light, but in the films many action sequences. Wheadon's experience writing for ensemble casts no doubt gave him a leg up on other would-be suitors for the reigns of the estimated $220 million Avengers.
The cast for this movie was a financial gamble. Utilizing Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner, Gwyneth Paltrow, Paul Bettany, Stellen Skarsgard, Clark Gregg, and Tom Hiddelston in one films budget was daunting enough. I only omit Mark Ruffalo because he was in neither of the previous Hulk films. Writing them all meaningful roles and functions within the film was quite another.
Tom Hiddelston must be given consideration being he was dealing with 4 super heroes and held his own from an acting perspective.
I feel that the movie was fairly well paced without being too pushy. While the action scenes move the plot forward, it's the dialogue scenes that draw in the viewer. Back story takes a slight backseat to the action, but in a good way. With 6 feature films before it, explaining much of the initial character introduction is mostly bypassed. This allows Wheadon to focus on the true meat and potatoes for the film, the actual relationships between the heroes.
The story focuses on the journey from very distant characters to a cohesive fighting force by the films climax. I keep drawing parallels between The Avengers and X-Men in that both are ensemble cast films. I feel that the former does a better job of distributing the acting load while the former relied almost too heavily on Hugh Jackman. The cast of The Avengers started farther apart and ends up rounding out their alter ego's much more cleanly than Singer's X-Men. The characters end up working through their differences after each experiencing a personal moment of self doubt. In this we see the humanity behind each of their heroic facades.
Wheadon's distinct cinematic style is not lost on The Avengers. POV camera angles, fast cuts during fights, and lots of non-steadycam shots add a gritty feel to the otherwise well polished cinematography. The version of the film I saw was the 3-D IMAX version of the film. Scenes during the climatic final battle and of the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier benefited from the extra scope offered by IMAX's enhanced aspect ratio. The 3-D effects were well done and not over the top as in some films.
While you won't necessarily miss out on much by seeing the non-3d version of the film, I do recommend it.
Alan Silvestri's score added some emotional depth to the film while not overpowering the audience. I felt going into the film that I would miss the enthralling John Debney score from Iron Man 2 but it just didn't happen. The actual plot of the movie wasn't ever brought to the forefront because in true comic style it frankly wasn't as important as the action, dialogue and themes of the material.
Some of my favorite moments of the film were the comic relief that Wheadon wrote into some of the films tenser moments. Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark provided a good counter to Evan's dogooder Captain American. The relationship between Agent Romanoff and Agent Barton was a nice subplot, and quite frankly something I hope there is more of in the directors cut, rumored to be near 30 minutes longer. Ruffalo's Banner I felt needed some time to get going but the Hulk managed to steal the screen. Hemsworth and Hiddelston continued the chemistry from Thor and added perhaps even more depth.
While The Avengers was not a perfect film it's high points glossed over the films few flaws. I thoroughly enjoyed the film from beginning to end, it was just plain fun. If you want a movie for deep discussion rewatch Fight Club or The Matrix. If you want to see the bad guys get beat and the heroes drop one liners with aplomb see The Avengers. All in all Joss Wheadon's writing, a tremendous cast and spectacular visuals combine like The Avengers characters themselves to create something better than it's individual components.
The Avengers - Overall rating (1-100) 88
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Introductions
I am writing this blog to explore and share my love of film with anyone who cares to listen. I am not a professional critic nor am I a film festival junkie. I am a man who since a young age has been fascinated with movies. From camera angles, to composers scores, to casting choices I love to consume film at all it's various levels. I hope that perhaps I can share some of my perspective and shed some light on modern film. I have seen many movies in my short time and have seen both good and horrendous ones. I hope to help some of you find new passion for film.
I only intend to review films I see in theatres or see when they are released on Blu-Ray. I plan on posting reviews as soon as I am able to but know that I have a full time job and volunteer so I may be slightly behind the curve. However I promise to be thorough and fair in my reviews. I look forward to posting my first review VERY soon. Stay tuned...
I only intend to review films I see in theatres or see when they are released on Blu-Ray. I plan on posting reviews as soon as I am able to but know that I have a full time job and volunteer so I may be slightly behind the curve. However I promise to be thorough and fair in my reviews. I look forward to posting my first review VERY soon. Stay tuned...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)