The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug

Main Takeaway:  long is the journey to the Lonely Mountain and it takes over two hours for our dwarf + Hobbit heroes to get into the hallowed halls of Erebor.  But it's a grand adventure to be had and you should tag along since there be dragons.

Verdict:  highly recommended, see it in high frame rate (HFR) 3D if you can

Pros:  

• to paraphrase George Lucas, the movie is faster, quicker, more intense
• somewhat analogous to the Two Towers, in that it's the middle act with more things going on now that we know the story and the characters better
• Legolas is meaner than the gentile elf that we saw in LOTR but still a badass.  Maybe dwarf envy?
• Tauriel is very pretty and very badass
• Smaug is impressive (Benedict Cumberbatch did the motion capture but not sure if it was just the face or the whole dragon body, which would have been cool)
• Martin Freeman may be a thief but still adds great humanity to being a Hobbit
• the high frame rate experience is at first jarring but after a while, you get used to it. But if you get motion sick, you may want to take some Dramamine before seeing the movie.

Cons:

• not sure why the movie had to be 2 hours and 40 minutes.  It felt like there was a ton of filler that could have been trimmed.  
• ends right at a cliffhanger, which I admire but it's also frustrating.  No, I'm not suffering dwarf envy! We just have to wait a whole year to see what happens next.
• Gandalf goes rogue to do some LOTR set up stuff.  I blame the whole coming of Sauron on Gandalf's meddling and those stupid dwarves.
• Main bad guy orc looks like an evil version of Jar Jar Binks.  Meesa thinks CGI bad guys needs more reality, less Jar Jar.
• And yeah, the high frame rate is impressive and all, especially during the action sequences but during the slow scenes, looks totally fake

Summary:

With a more streamlined plot, that quickly jumps from one scenic location to another, our heroes jump from one entanglement to another, often leading us to some harrowing action sequence that is a marvel to watch in 3D with high frame rate.  Much of the dull exposition that occurred in The Unexpected Journey is greatly reduced in this film (although the story does falter slightly when our heroes reach Lake-town) and you can feel the sense of urgency the dwarfs have in wanting to slay the evil dragon and regain their homeland.

The Gandalf side quest is a bit distracting at first but when you look at the grand scheme that is the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit being the prologue, it makes sense why Gandalf is more detective than wizard (although we see him using more of his wizardry skills than we did in the first movie).

Clocking in at 2 hours and 40 minutes, it's as long as the first movie, but faster, quicker, more intense and best of all, better action scenes.  Introducing Tauriel is an inspired decision Peter Jackson made in expanding Tolkien's universe but along the way, Jackson gets mired in needless story filler.  Still, it's much more fun than Unexpected Journey and it's a joy seeing Smaug in action.  Nice wink-wink pairing of Cumberbatch and Freeman sharing the same scenes together.


Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Benedict Cumberbatch
Written By: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, Guillermo del Toro
Directed By: Peter Jackson
Rated PG-13

Frozen

Main Takeaway:  Disney becomes the new Pixar in creating a crowd pleasing movie full of goofy characters, a beautiful snowy locale and a strong set of musical numbers that rivals the best Disney offered in its 90's heyday.

Verdict:  Highly recommended. 3D not necessary.

Pros

• Veronica Mars is a Disney Princess, singing included.  Kristen Bell owns the Anna character, giving her character enough warmth, heart, goofiness and vulnerability in her performance.
• the musical numbers, especially the earlier songs, are all standouts:
• "Do You Want To Build A Snowman" - you listen and you'll smile and then feel so melancholy within a span of 3 minutes.
• "For The First Time In Forever" - a grand and sweeping song, like a spunkier version of "Belle" from Beauty and the Beast
• "Love Is an Open Door" - a very catchy tune with funny lyrics that has some great harmonizing
• "Let It Go" - while not as strong as the first three, when you hear the song while watching the movie, it just works and you completely understand what the Elsa character is going through
• the story is simple but there is an underlying level of complexity in its characters and relationships with each other, especially between the sisters
• Sidekick characters pile on the humor, on top of the already funny main characters

Cons

• great locale (a very Norwegian vibe) but not appreciated when the land is frozen over. Then it's just fifty thousands shades of white. You can only take so much white.
• action sequences were not as dynamic as some of the best action scenes from Tangled and Wreck It Ralph

Summary

The Disney Animation Studios reached its pinnacle of creativity during the release of Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and Lion King. There was a kind of emotional resonance when watching each film, with its timeless musical numbers, identifiable characters and great stories that you want to hear about.  Pixar Studio's initial release of movies showed that other studios were primed to tell stories just as well as Disney (if not better).  But, there has been a renaissance in Disney Animation Studio's in their past releases: Tangled, with its lead character looking to leave her home to see what's out there (similar to Belle's desire to leave her small, provincial town) , Wrech It Ralph and his search to find acceptance among those who have shunned him (similar to Aladdin's desire to not be shunned by other because of his lack of wealth) and most recently, Frozen, a touching story about two sisters, so close at one time but had drifted apart because of events that transpire in the story.  Similar to Lion King's treatment of death and inheritance of responsibility, Frozen's handling of such complicated themes of sisterhood and true love that is explored between Anna and Elsa is impressive: while simple on the surface, go deeper and you realize the complicated relationship they both have.  Throw in a prince, an ice seller with his trusty reindeer and a cool (cold?) sidekick, you get an enchanting story of saving a kingdom from wintry doom but also a satisfying heroine's journey of saving her sister.


Starring: Kristen Bell, Idina Menzel, Jonathan Groff, Santino Fontana, Josh Gad
Screenplay:  Jennifer Lee
Story:  Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee, Shane Morris
Directed By:  Chris Buck, Jennifer Lee
Rated PG
Based on "The Snow Queen" by Hans Christian Andersen

Mini Movie Reviews - November 2013 Edition

A lot of great movies came out during the summer time and I was fortunate to see a good number of them. There were also a good number of films I didn't get the chance to watch so I'm fortunate enough to now have time to watch them on Blu-ray so the following are reviews of movies that I've recently watched.  Enjoy.

World War Z

Brad Pitt is wielding a shotgun and looking rather ruggedly handsome with his flowing locks as he fights against a zombie infestation that is spreading rapidly.  While it doesn't have the same doomsday sense of dread as Steven Soderbergh's Contagion, there is a lot of frantic action scenes in the beginning and slow burn suspense towards the end that works surprisingly well in keeping you entertained.  You may not relate with any of the characters (I mean seriously, do any of the UN investigators look as gorgeous as Brad Pitt, flowing locks and all?) but it's a fun take on the zombie apocalypse.

Verdict:  stimulating enough to make your brain more enticing for zombies

Monsters University

Like Temple of Doom before Raiders, like Phantom Menace before Star Wars, you have Monsters University, which serves as a prequel to the events that transpire in Monsters Inc. Here, we see the beginnings of the deep friendship between Mike and Sully during their early years at MU. Like most prequels, it has the extra burden of tying both films together.  Some do it better than others and luckily, MU does a fine job of making the connections make sense while maintaining continuity between the two movies.  But, like some of the sequels that we've seen this summer, it's a capable adventure comedy with characters that we've grown to love from the original but lacks the same amount of heart as the original.

There are certainly lots of Animal House antics and while the second act falls into a generic storyline that eventually reaches a generic climax, you think the movie is over only to find out there is an intriguing third act that adds much to the storyline. What's interesting is that, while I liked the action packed, jaw dropping climax of Monsters Inc., Monsters University goes in the opposite direction and provides a more intimate climax but one where the pay off is almost as good as the original ... almost.

Verdict:  no Boo but more foo-lishness and fun.  May not be the best of what Pixar has to offer but even so-so Pixar is much better than the best of what's out there

Pitch Perfect

Look at the success of American Idol in the past years and Glee in recent years and you'll see how songs are repackaged into something that's easily recognizable but somewhat skewed in such a way that it's not easily dismissible.  It grabs your attention, makes you want more and feel somewhat nostalgic for the original at the same time.  It's an intoxicating mix.  Now add acapella (a difficult feat in itself since you don't have a prearranged track to use as a crutch) and you have Pitch Perfect.

I wasn't really buying Anna Kendrick as a loner-square peg that doesn't want to fit in with the rest of the girls at her college but as her character goes from self-imposed outcast to reluctant leader/hero, she grew on me. The movie really gets into gear when you see the Beca character take charge, trying to pull her group away from being gauzy acapella choir girls to cutting edge acapella singers.  The scene where they sing the Bruno Mars - Nelly remix is inspired.

There are a lot of times where the movie is absurd, coarse and clichéd but hey, Pitch Perfect ultimately wins with some standout singing sets that confidently carries a tune.  

Verdict:  it may not reach the same level of coolness as The Breakfast Club but it will make you not want to forget about this movie.

Gravity

Main Takeaway:  You watch and then you realize that the attraction to the movie is not a singular aspect but rather the combination of star power, movie making prowess and streamlined storytelling that pulls you in and doesn't let go.

Verdict:  Highly Recommended. 3D definitely, IMAX optional

Pros

• Spectacular, vivid shots of the planet Earth from space
• Believable sequences of peril, making you wonder what's going to happen next
• Incredibly long one-take shots; director Alfonso Cuaron's trademark, giving you a sense that you are actually there, in real time, as opposed to an omniscient viewer, watching in movie time
• Sandra Bullock and George Clooney; makes you want to root for them, even though you may have a hard time thinking of them as actual astronauts
• Short run time of 91 minutes (this isn't a con since it compresses the movie into a more potent package of storytelling and action sequences

Cons

• Hardly any lens flare

Summary

Lost in space. The final frontier.  In space, no one can hear you scream. You've heard all of the movie references and tag line from past science fiction films. The thing about Gravity is that it's less fiction, more science and a tag line isn't really going to sum up this unique movie going experience. It sets a new bar in what a movie that takes place in space is all about. Watching it in 3D, the beginning of the movie really sets the tone: almost first hand experience of floating weightlessly in space, tagging along with the crew of the space shuttle as they are making adjustments to the Hubble space telescope. Some catastrophe happens that then kicks the movie into high gear. You watch and then you almost forget to breathe as our heroes face one dangerous predicament to the next. Cuaron does a phenomenal job of placing the audience in the middle of the action, at times putting the camera straight into the actor's face so that you can see, hear and even feel what they're going through. At times, it's a dizzyingly surreal experience ... something that I can say with confidence has never occured in any other movie going experience. It's that good.

Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Written By: Alfonso Cuaron & Jonas Cuaron

Directed By: Alfonso Cuaron

Genre: Science Fiction, Thriller

Rated PG-13

Punch Out: Despicable Me 2 versus Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2

In This Corner:  in the day-glow yellow trunks, hailing from Gru's Secret Lab ... Despicable Me 2

Main Takeaway:  While not as sweet and heartfelt as the original, this sequel hits all of the right notes in bringing back the gang, introducing new characters and mixing it up with a wacky world of spycraft.  Come for the generic storyline of Gru and new partner in spy Lucy going against bad guy El Macho but definitely stay for the minion mischief.

Verdict:  Matinee.  3D not necessary but nice to have.

Pros:

• Great chemistry between Gru and Lucy
• Good father/son relationship between Gru and Dr. Nefario
• The girls (Margo, Edith and Agnes) add to the fun, especially the boyfriend angle with Margo
• Minions (lots of them)

Cons:

• The edginess that Gru had in the first film is somewhat neutered in this film.  Responsible dad now?
• Could use more minion madness

Summary:  Despicable Me was a surprise hit for me.  I didn't see it at the movie theaters nor on rental.  Instead, it was at a school event and my daugthers had a blast watching it.  What surprised me is how much the character Gru (warning:  intended pun) grew on me.  His transformation from evil bad guy and good bad guy, thanks to his relationship with the girls, made the ending of the original movie all the more endearing.  For DM2, we see Gru going from good bad guy to bland good guy.  He's a thoughtful father with a flair for gadgets (what dad doesn't have a flair for gadgets?) but finds himself bored at a hum-dum life of hosting princess birthday parties.  Enter Lucy, a bungling spy who enlists Gru's superbad skills to catch the evil El Macho.  There are lots of action to go around for Lucy and Gru, as well as his minions.  What could have been a potential sequel snoozefest with its generic storyline, Despicable Me 2 elevates itself to fun status by having the minions be part of the overall story arc, pushing the film to a fine level of inspired mayhem and mischief.

In This Corner:  in the tomato sauce stained trunks ... Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

Main Takeaway:  It's like going to a buffet restaurant and getting a second helping of something that you kind of liked during the first buffet pass.  It may not be fine cuisine but it hits the spot.  Afterwards, you kind of wonder if that second helping was really necessary.  

Verdict:  Rental.  3D not ncessary but nice to have.

Pros:

• Same cheerful bunch from the first movie is back for some more foodie action
• Good father/son relationship between Flint and his father Tim
• Interesting choice for the bad guy (some weird fusion between Walt Mossberg and Steve Jobs)
• Plenty of food puns to keep your pun stomach full

Cons:

• Middle section felt bloated.  Could have gone on a diet and lost a couple of minutes
• Some of the conflict between Flint and the group, especially with Sam, felt needlessly forced.  Could have gone on a diet and lost a couple of minutes
• The Chester V character (Walt+Steve) didn't seem like an ideal bad guy.  He's evil but more like corporate evil.  Didn't need to go on a diet since he was wafer thin
• Plenty of food puns to overload your pun stomach
• Did not make me hungry

Summary:  I saw the first movie at the friend's home and didn't think much about it.  So I was surprised to hear about the sequel.  It kind of popped out of nowhere.  Servicable, with a story that was straightforward but engaging enough to keep me interested.  If anything, the lack of a fleshed out story was made up by sheer spectacle of the food-imals.  Each introduction to a new species of food-imal felt like something out of a Pokemon game.  "Look!  There's a flamango!!!  Oh!  Shrimpanzee!  Oh where oh where is the cocktail sauce?"  All in all, a movie the kids will like but parents may have felt that, in the end, it was nothing more than empty calories.

Judge's Score (higher is better)

Despicable Me 2

Pros:  4

Cons:  2

Summary:  4

Swing:  4

Total:  4

Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2

Pros:  4

Cons:  5

Summary:  3

Swing:  3

Total:  3

Winner:  Descpicable Me 2

Punch Out: Iron Man 3 Versus Man Of Steel

[Reviewed on August 6th 2013]

In This Corner: in the gold and red trunks, hailing from Malibu California ... Iron Man 3

Main Takeaway:  Lethal Weapon scribe writes and directs the third installment of Iron Man.  Combining a 80s buddy-cop vibe with modern drone army overtones, you keep expecting Tony Stark to shake his head and mutter to himself, "I'm getting too old for this shit".  Verdict:  Matinee.  3D not necessary.

Pros:  

• Tony Stark in typical Tony *Snark*-mode, but at the same time, full of doubts due to the events that occurred in Avengers
• Great rescue scene in the middle act, which puntuates the minor reveal about his Iron Man armor
• Ben Kingsley's Mandarin character is awesome
• Makes reference to Downton Abbey

Cons:

• Gwynthe Paltrow doesn't look so hot in this movie.  Maybe her health cleanse took away some of her star luster?
• At one moment in the movie, Tony Stark channels Martin Riggs when sneaking into a home.  I swear, I thought I was watching Lethal Weapon 5, only without Murtaugh, My Cousin Vinnie and Thor's mom
• Guy Pearce doesn't do much in the movie, which is a shame
• People who explode can get messy
• The ending, while well executed, didn't do much for me.

Summary

I don't know.  While better than Iron Man 2, 3 didn't really show off the kind of harrowing escape or the fun of creating the Iron Man suit that we saw in the first Iron Man.  Nor did it show the manic genius/leader qualities of the Avengers.  Tony Stark is still a brilliantly realized character, thanks to Robert Downing Jr's acting:  he's being flippant one moment, and then rat-tat-tat details oriented another moment.  I wouldn't say that he was slumming it in this third film but really, after seeing him in four films already (1, 2, the Avengers and now 3), I think we the audience might start thinking that this shit is getting old.

In This Corner:  in the red and blue trunks, hailing from Smallville, USA by way of Krypton ... Man of Steel

Main Takeaway:  the guys who wrote Batman Begins and the Dark Knight meet up with the guy who directed 300 and The Watchmen and decide to make Superman into an alien ... just like Thor!  Only Supes is raised as a wholesome as baseball and apple pie American while Thor is raised as a DB.  Man, parenting is SO important.  Oh, Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are Superman's parents.  And minor spoiler:  Kevin Costner's streak may have come to an end.  Verdict:  Matinee.  3D not necessary. 

Pros:

• The alien angle is a bold move.  It's inferred but not explicitly mentioned in the Richard Donner films.  
• The loner aspect of moving from one place to another is also well fleshed out in the movie
• Amy Adams ... mmmmmm.
• I have to say that Kevin Costner gives off this Field of Dreams vibe that works in this movie
• When Supes sets up his Fortress of Solitude and tries out that whole "leap tall buildings in a single bound" thing and watching him smile, you kind of get the same feel-good feeling when watching Tobey Maguire realizing his potential as Spiderman.  Sorry ... this is the second time I referenced a Marvel comic character.  I won't do that again.
• Russel Crowe doesn't sing in this movie.  Seriously, I half expected him to start belting out a song (monotone, of course) about Jean Valjean.

Cons:

• I think they went full alien when they should have gone half alien.  Everyone knows you never go full alien.  I mean, look at Thor, that stuck up, half witted, scruffy looking Asgardian.
• All of the scenes on Krypton felt like something out of Avatar.  Weird.
• Flashbacks seem really out of place.  There were flashbacks in Batman Begins that flowed well with the story but not so much here
• Terraforming.  Really?  Now you know that the movie went full alien on you.
• The ending, while well executed, didn't do much for me.  And it felt so contrived.
• Amy Adams doesn't sing in this movie

Summary

As an origins film, it hits all of the bullet points you would expect, almost following the Richard Donner template for Superman The Movie (Krypton, Smallvile, Metropolis).  Unfortunately, the narrative is so scattershot that it doesn't really flow that well ... which is a shame because this movie had so much potential.  This film had the opportunity to give people hope in the world but somewhat squandered it on showing a moody, more introspective Superman, shackled to the thought that he is more alien than human.  In the trailer, there is a scene where young Clark asks his father, "Can't I just keeping pretending to be your son" when realizing that he's not of earth.  And Kevin Costner says "You ARE my son".  And yet, for the rest of the movie, we don't see the human quality that Clark is striving for, of being part of earth, being part of Americana.

Judges Score

Iron Man 3

• Pros:  4
• Cons:  5
• Summary:  3
• Swing:  2
• Total:  3

Man of Steel

• Pros:  6
• Cons:  6
• Summary:  3
• Swing:  4
• Total:  5

Analysis

There was an NBC News article about how a pure and straightforward character like Superman must compete in a world dominated by snarky Iron Man.  Where Tony Stark is glib and arrogant, Clark Kent is mild mannered and considerate.  He doesn't want to harm others while Tony Stark doesn't mind getting in harm's way.  Does that make Man of Steel a less interesting film or the character less interesting?  Not at all.  From an entertainment perspective, despite it's flaws, I liked Man of Steel more than Iron Man 3 just because I'm a sucker for origins films (Star Trek reboot, 007 reboot, first Iron Man) and wanted to see how they would change a movie icon so ingrained in so many people, thanks to the Donner films.  I think it worked to a certain degree but I don't think it successfully updated Superman the character to fit the modern times.  It's certainly darker with a sense of foreboding (similar to Batman) compared to the light and breezy nature of Iron Man but that not enough to make Superman modern.  It would be interesting to see in which direction the producers/directors/writers go with Man of Steel 2 with the Batman crossover.

Pacific Rim

[reviewed on August 5th 2013]

Is Pacific Rim just another Transformers wannabee (short answer:  no) or is the mecha versus kaiju movie everything geeks, nerds and otakus are looking for (short answer:  oh hell yeah).

Main Takeaway

Combine one part 70's robot cartoons (Gundam, Mazinger Z), half part 80's Voltron with a dash of Robotech, mix two parts Godzilla and add a healthy dollop of Independence Day and you get Pacific Rim.  Verdict:  oh hell yeah, in 3D.

Pros

• lots of Robots versus Monsters scenes, especially in the middle act that culminates into a big fight scene that had the audience cheering.  The only times I've heard the audience that I was with cheer at a movie was the Death Star run in Star Wars and recently, the Hulk doing his thing in The Avengers.
• a good number of robots, each with their own unique design and personality
• Elbow Rocket!  FTW!
• interesting set up, where it takes two people to control a single robot
• interesting backstory regarding Kikuchi Rinko's character
• Idris Elba (dude that says "today, we are canceling the apocalypse" in the trailer) is pretty much the heart that drives the movie forward
• Charlie Day playing JJ Abrams.  I swear ... I thought JJ Abrams was acting in this movie
• Ron Perlman, Vincent from CBS's Beauty and the Beast and Guillermo Del Toro regular (he's Hellboy!), in a scene chewing role only he can play

Cons

• paper thin story
• rice paper thin characters
• a good number of monsters that all kind of look the same (big, creepy, with wafer thin personality)
• Tokyo doesn't get destroyed.  Hong Kong does.  You would think a movie that pays homage to the old Toho Godzilla movies would at least have the decency to destroy Tokyo landmarks like SkyTree.  Maybe Tokyo will get destroyed in the sequel that will hopefully have a better than wafer thin storyline
• rah-rah, unite together to save humanity, reminiscent of the last act of another movie full of paper thin characters (Independence Day)
• ending somewhat reminiscent of the last act of another movie with a paper thing story (Independence Day)

Summary

For anyone who has ever watched the robot cartoon shows from the late 70's or caught a late night showing of Godzilla versus Mothra on TV, Pacific Rim is pretty much a love letter to the heyday of those Japanese driven animation and man-in-suit monster movies.  The special effects are top notch.  Transformers, while also top notch in its special effects, drops the ball with its asinine characters.  Sure, with Pacific Rim, you have your stock characters (your father figure character, man-boy character trying to redeem himself from past unspeakable deeds, daughter figure character trying to prove herself in a man + robot world, douche-bag character with chip on shoulder (wouldn't be a DB without a chip on his shoulder) and yeah, the acting is all over the place but hey, it's way better than watching Shia LeBeouf trying to be cool while arguing with a car.  If there was a fault with this movie, it would be it's near carbon copy of the third act from ID4.


Starring:  Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Ron Perlman
Written By:  Travis Cheacam, Guillermo Del Toro
Directed By:  Guillermo Del Toro
Genre:  Action/Science Fiction
Rated PG-13

Star Trek Into Darkness

[Reviewed on June 4th, 2013]

I saw this last weekend and it was pretty good.  I tried to keep this review as spoiler free as possible.  Hope that you all get a chance to see it so that, similar to Black Swan, it would be interesting to hear your take on the spoiler areas.  In any case, my short movie review:

Main Takeaway

It's like Star Trek awkwardly asking Star Wars out to Back To The Future 2's Enchantment Under the Sea dance but getting rejected because Star Wars is going out with Brokeback Mountain and thinks Star Trek has bad breath.  Recommended, definitely in IMAX if you have the chance

Likes

• Lots of starship porn (you know, lots of hero shots of the Enterprise, not actual porn)
• Lots of lens flare (but disappointingly not as much as the 2009 version)
• Nice throwbacks/homages to the original series movies
• Nice male bonding between Kirk and Spock (like I said, no actual porn!)
• Space battles!  Pew pew pew!
• Scotty has some of the best scenes
• Benedict Cumberbatch is a badass villain; better than Nero, Sherlock definitely has this steely stare that would send shivers down V'Ger's core

Dislikes

• A good number of contrived moments that almost breaks your suspension of disbelief.  Sure all of the movies have them (I mean seriously ... whales?) but there are some in the movie that were a bit too convenient
• Where Star Trek (2009) had a bright and hopeful vibe, Into Darkness definitely is heavy (there's that word again.  Is there something wrong with Earth's gravitational pull?)

Summary

There is an episode in Lost where one of the characters (Desmond) realizes that he can travel through time.  However, while he has the power to alter things, there are some things that, no matter what you do, cannot escape their unalterable fate.  You get the feeling when watching the 2009 Star Trek and this movie:  the events from the first movie (alternative timeline) carry over to this movie, where echos from events in past movies (the canon timeline) reverberate in Into Darkness.  Things might have changed but it doesn't alter their fate (Kirk captaining the Enterprise to what happens at the end of Into Darkness).  Similar to the alternate 1985 in Back to the Future II, where everything was all weirdly dark and scary looking (Biff's casino, Lea Thompson in old age makeup), this Star Trek alternate universe is everything that you know about Star Trek but a strangely corrupted and almost menacing version.  Unlike the first movie, which was a Spock-centric, "I miss Winona as my mom" story, this is more of a Kirk-driven, "Revenge is a dish best served cold" storyline and to be honest, I like it since you really buy into each character's motive that often lead to some kind of breathlessly crazy action sequence ...  even with the glaringly contrived moments (Dislike #1).

Starring:  Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch
Written By:  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof
Directed By:  J.J. Abrams
Genre:  Action/Science Fiction
Rated PG-13

Mini Movie Reviews - April 2013 Edition

[Published as email on April 14th 2013]

I've been watching movies but haven't had time to write formal reviews.  For the record, the movies I've seen lately are:

• Jurassic Park 3D - I saw this the first time when I was teaching in Japan and saw it at a small rinky dink closet of a movie theater.  I wasn't too overwhelmed at the time and even after countless viewings on VHS and DVD, I thought of the movie as unremarkable.  But now, seeing it in 3D, it's actually a pretty good film and the 3D effects are exploited for full impact.  As a side note, another older movie, Top Gun, also came out in 3D but do I really want to see a bunch of guys with their shirts off playing volleyball in 3D?  Verdict:  Matinee but make sure to see it in 3D.
• Olympus Has Fallen - solid action movie.  It's pretty much Die Hard in the White House.  You know the scene in Die Hard when the Hans character is threatening the Takagi character with a gun pointed at his head and when he blows his brains out, you see the splatter effect on the door?  I remember seeing that when Die Hard first came out and thought "holy shit ... that's brutal".  Well, Olympus Has Fallen must have at least 10 splatter effect scenes and while effective in showing the viciousness of the enemy, it doesn't really carry the same "holy shit" feeling that Die Hard did.  Verdict:  Matinee.

The following I saw on Blu-ray:

• Zero Dark Thirty - this was a good film but shifts into high gear when they raid Bin Laden's compound.  Verdict:  see it for the last 40 minutes
• Argo - it's like the Players meets Zero Dark Thirty.  Verdict:  I liked it.  I would definitely see it, especially for the last 40 minutes
• Skyfall - in this Daniel Craig era of Bond, this was better than Quantum of Solace but not as good as Casino Royale.  Verdict:  I liked it, but the last 40 minutes was a bit tiresome
• Life Of Pi - my expectations for this movie was really low but turned out to be pretty awesome.  Verdict:  I really like it, especially the last 40 minutes
• The Hobbit - I saw this in HFR (high framerate) + IMAX 3D when it came out December of last year.  It had the same LOTR vibe to it but not the same momentum that Fellowship had.  I know the Peter Jackson decided to break the book into three films instead of two and while I applaud his effort, the extra filler makes it feel bloated (kind of like the last handful of scenes in Return of the King).  Verdict:  I still liked it but it takes Bilbo 40 minutes to get out of the Shire.
• Les Miserables - I never read the book or watched the play.  I liked it but I guess I was expecting a Disney-esque type of musical, where characters suddenly burst into song at the most in-opportunistic times.  Verdict: there was more than 40 minutes worth of singing.

The Hunger Games

[Reviewed April 11th, 2012]

My team's morale has been in the pits lately since all of us having been working long hours on getting our work out the door.  To boost morale (and to get out of the office), we decided to watch "The Hunger Games" at the Pacific Science Center, which houses a real IMAX movie theater, unlike those converted-to-pseudo-IMAX screens that you'll find at your local multiplex.  Reviews for the movie have been pretty good and having enjoyed reading all three of the books, this was a movie that I was looking forward to seeing.  So, how was the movie?  Here's my short movie review.

Main Takeaway

A capable book-to-movie translation that delivers on most of the key scenes but doesn't deliver on making it an engaging experience.  Verdict:  matinee, if you're interested; otherwise Rental; not worth seeing it in IMAX.

Pros

• Very faithful to the book … almost to a fault
• Beautiful location shooting in western North Carolina
• Some scenes that you've imagined when reading the book looked better on film (train ride to the Capitol, training sequence)
• I like popcorn

Cons

• Tons of needless, fidgety shaky-cam scenes.  Makes a Michael Bay film look downright sedate.  Watching it in IMAX didn't help since we sat close to an awesomely large screen.
• Key action scenes were edited in a hyper-Michael Bay style of whiplash quick-editing, which masks the violence but makes you wish barf bags were provided
• Some scenes that you've imagined when reading the book looked much worse on film (Cornucopia, Capitol citizens)
• The actors did a good job in the film but their performances were really wooden.  Not Phantom Menace bad but not as lively as you would have expected.  Not sure if this is the fault of the actors, director or the film producers but I didn't feel a lot of chemistry between each of the characters.  I will say, however, that there was one brief moment of brilliance when the MC (Stanley Tucci) is interviewing Peeta and the interplay between them works well.
• For a book that kept me wanting to read what would happen in the next chapter, I didn't get the same sense of suspense and anticipation with the movie.
• I ate all of the popcorn

Summary

Whether it's Harry Potter or the Twilight series or even the Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan films, part of the fun of watching these types of movies is seeing how well (or not so well) the producers were able to translate the book to a feature film.  The introduction to Diagon Alley and when Harry gets his wand where two early scenes from the series that made me realize that I was in for a treat when I watched the first Harry Potter film.  For Hunger Games, I didn't get the same vibe.  I think the producers, actors and directors all had the best intentions of making the book into a badass movie but it came off more as a made-for-television movie.  This might have been intentional since I heard that the director wanted to keep the movie on or under budget and didn't want to make it into an over-the-top movie with violence/gore, explosions and such.  The book has Katniss processing a lot of stuff in her mind but the movie has the more difficult challenge of making those inner thoughts into outer actions or words for other to hear and react.  Unfortunately, we don't get that and it's unfortunate since the producers had a great opportunity to really make the movie stand apart from the source material.  Instead, we're left with blank stares and listless actions that makes it difficult to really empathize with the characters.  Maybe they'll do a better job with Catching Fire.

Notes

There's been a number of discussions online (both movie reviews or reviews of the books) about how Hungry Games is very similar to the Japanese novel/movie Battle Royale.  I've never read the book or watched the movie but it would be interesting to see it if it they are very similar.  Personally, I thought Hunger Games was similar to the Arnold Schwarzenegger film, The Running Man.

Starring:  Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth

Written By:  Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins (based on her novel)

Directed By:  Gary Ross

Genre:  Adventure/Science Fiction

Rated PG-13

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

[Reviewed on December 18th 2011]

I saw this over the weekend, just after seeing Brian's Twitter feed that he saw Mission Impossible over the weekend as well and mentioned that Tom Cruise does a lot of running in the movie.  Agreed, the man knows how to run gracefully onscreen.  But the big question is:  did you like it so much that you felt compelled to climb up on Oprah's sofa and start jumping up and down while proclaiming your love for the movie?  In any case, here is my short movie review.

Main Takeaway

Big summer movie in December.  Verdict:  Recommended, definitely in IMAX if you have the chance.

Pros

• Lots of gadgets
• 2nd act (that takes place in Dubai) worked really well
• Tom Cruise doing his thing, talking in short, controlled bursts of verbage when he isn't doing some crazy ass stunt
• Brad Bird (director of the Incredibles and Ratatouille) makes a fun, action packed movie.  Disciple of JJ Abrams, without the lens flare
• There were a good number of quiet moments mixed in with big, bombastic actions scenes
• Sawyer from Lost is in it
• The Dark Knight Rises trailer played before the movie

Cons/Nits

• Long running time
• Could easily have been mistaken for a James Bond movie
• While it didn't make me want to go out and buy a BMW, all of the BMW and Canon branding was somewhat in your face.  Not as blatant as The Island or Transformers 2 but still there.

Summary

Out of all of the Mission Impossible movies, this is the best but that's not really saying much.  The first one (directed by Brian DePalma) tripped over its own plot twists but had some memorable action scenes.  The second one (directed by John Woo) didn't really have any great action scenes and didn't have much of a plot. I felt for John Woo (Hollywood version) who was trying his best to imitate John Woo (Hong Kong version) and failing miserably.  The third one (directed by JJ Abrams) was good since it focused more on the team players instead of just on Tom Cruise.  Oh ... and there were several good action scenes.  The fourth one works on the strengths of the third one and raises it up a notch.  Not all the way up to eleven but more like 9.  All of the action scenes involving the Burj Khalifa (the worlds tallest building in the world) in IMAX were vertigo-inducing cool.  If anything, it serves as a reminder as to why people pay an extra $3 to watch a movie in IMAX.  

Did You Notice

A number of iPhones were used by IMF personnel and would self destruct after a mission is assigned.  Does that reflect the quality of the product?  Of course, Brad Bird used to work for PIXAR who has close ties with Apple so you wonder if there was a little bit of product placement nepotism involved.  Having said that, there is one scene, right after Kremlin scene, where Ethan steals someone's phone to call IMF.  Right after using it, he throws it into the gutter.  Note that it wasn't an iPhone :-).

Starring:  Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton

Written By:  Josh Appelbaum, Andre Nemec

Directed By:  Brad Bird

Genre:  Action/Thriller

Rated:  PG-13

Black Swan

[Reviewed on December 23rd, 2010]

Main Takeaway:  

Queen Amidala goes from little girl to grown woman in a span of 100 minutes in an interesting spin of Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hype, ballerina style.  Verdict:  Rental

Pros:

• Short, it was a little over 90 minutes so the pacing was quick and efficient
• From a layman's standpoint, I thought the dancing was beautiful
• This is really Natalie Portman's film; she nails the role of Nina
• Mila Kunis' Lily provides a great foil for Nina
• Some of the finer points of ballet, from the stretching, countless hours of practice sessions, to the minor nuances such as ripping out the soles of their shoes and burning the tips of the strings so that they don't fray, were great ways of showing the amount of physical, mental and emotional preparation needed to excel at ballet
• Technical aspects (both the dancing and the camera tricks) were impressive.  How did they film those scenes with the mirrored walls and not get the camera in the shot?
• I thought was the Mom character was going to be creepy/domineering and it was but luckily, it didn't venture into Mommy Dearest territory.
• Very subtle take on puberty, with the wings coming in and growing out the little girl bubble that Nina lived in
• Very subtle riff on the Wolfman/Doctor Jekyl and Mr. Hyde story

Cons/Nits:

• The whole "was it a dream" thing felt too "Fight Club" for me.  
• The girl on girl action was meh.
• This is probably the Winona fanboy in me saying this but Winona Ryder's character was hardly there.  Sure, she has a disturbing scene in the hospital towards the end but her performance didn't convince me that she was this spectacular ballerina.  Too bad there weren't scenes of her trying to do some complex moves but falter because of age, or lack of skill or some kind of detriment that forced her out which forces Thomas to force her into retirement.
• From a non-ballet perspective, I'm not sure why Nina felt that she had to be the Black Swan in this particular production.  If she felt that she wasn't up to it, couldn't she have waited until the next production of something else?
• So, Nina slams the door on Mom's fingers and then Mom refuses to wake Nina up for the big, opening day of Black Swan.  You see Mom pouting on the couch while Nina complains to her about not waking her up.  And yet, towards the finale of the Black Swan production, there is a shot of Mom out in the audience.  I guess it's possible that despite being abused by Nina and not wanting to do anything with her anymore, Mom still cares for Nina and goes and buys a ticket (or got one from Nina already) and went to see the show.  But still, seeing her in the audience was a bit jarring for me.

Summary:

Overall, I was entertained but I wasn't blown away by it ... certainly not Best Picture nominee blown away, I was far more entertained with Inception, Toy Story 3, The King's Speech, and The Social Network, especially Inception.  I think part of the frustration of the movie comes from Nina's slow progression from White Swan to Black Swan/Girl to Womanhood.  It doesn't really kick in until Nina and Lily start getting chummy towards the last act.  The scene where Nina blows off her mom and goes out drinking with Lily is, to me, the only point in the movie where you're rooting for her.  In all of the previous scenes, I really wanted to relate to Nina, especially the scenes with her mother but didn't make a strong connection until towards the end.  Perhaps that was intentional but I felt the character development was too slow, especially for a movie that is about 100 minutes long.

Starring:  Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder

Written By:  Mark Heyman, Adnres Heinz, and John J. McLaughlin

Directed By:  Darren Aronofsky

Genre:  Drama/Thriller

Rated R