42 (Jackie Robinson) Review

Thoughts: 42 is the story of Jackie Robinson, the man who broke the color barrier in baseball, and his actions would eventually lead to it being broken in all major sports. Unlike most biopics, 42 fortunately does not start from the beginning of Jackie's life. It instead starts right before he is signed by the Brooklyn Dodgers, and thus focuses on the best part of his career: when he breaks the color barrier. As I have stated several times, I love baseball and the history of baseball, however baseball movies have generally disappointed me because the baseball aspect is often poorly portrayed. However, 42 is the first baseball to actually get it right, which is one of the many reasons why 42 is such a great film.

Directed by: Brian Helgeland
Genre: Baseball, Drama, Biopic,
Release Date: April 12, 2013
Running Time: 128 minutes
MMPA rating: PG-13

The Good: Harrison Ford's Oscar worthy performance, Perfectly portrays the baseball aspect, Looks 100% authentic, Boseman is perfectly case, Superb cinematography, Mostly historically accurate, All-around brilliant performances, Surprisingly humorous, Never a dull moment, Doesn't force the social issues, Likeable characters,

The Bad: Clichéd kid watching the game,

Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
The film tells the story of Jackie Robinson and, under the guidance of team executive Branch Rickey, Robinson's signing with the Brooklyn Dodgers to become the first African-American player to break the baseball color barrier. The story focuses mostly on the 1947 Brooklyn Dodgers season and somewhat on Robinson's 1946 season with the Montreal Royals.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.

Plot: 8.9/10- Director and writer Brian Helgeland did an excellent job with the film in nearly every aspect. Jackie Robinson's story is told very well with surprising amount of historical accuracy, although there are a few scenes in particular that are fiction. Robinson's story is one that needed to be told and it probably could not have been told any better. Although the film does have very occasional corny moments, the story is told realistically and never "sugar coats" any of the facts. Also the pacing of 42 is spot on, it never feels overly long during any parts of the film.
Some movies that are about racism really tried to force the issue of racism over the actual story of the film and often lose the impact of the point trying to be made, however 42 used the real historical facts and story to make its point, which is why 42 was effective. While some may say the story is predictable, it is based on history so that should not really be considered an issue.
There is the one obligatory annoying kid that has a one or two painfully corny moments, fortunately however, it is limited and the only real negative of the film.
The end was corny because it kind of copied "The Natural" with its slow motion trot around the bases and that the ending was not based on historical fact, or that is why I have read.

Action: N/A- Although not "action," it important to mention the baseball scenes that were filmed. This is the first time that I can truly say that a movie got the baseball part right. The direction of those scenes where spot on. Each scene was framed well, thus making the game of baseball as exciting as the real thing. All too often in baseball movies, the baseball aspect is lacking.

Acting: 9.4/10- Harrison Ford killed it as Branch Rickey; someone get this man an Oscar (or at least a nomination)! Ford owned the role, he not only looked the part, but played it perfectly; his best performance in years. Chadwick Boseman as Jackie Robinson also owned his role, and he too looked like his real life counterpart. Boseman portrayed Robinson's struggle to "have the guts to not fight back" excellently. All of the other actors in the film gave top notch performances, there was not a weak performance in the film, other than that one annoying kid.
How could Alan Tudyk go from one of the most likeable characters ever as Wash from Firefly, to one of the most despicable dirt bags in recent memory!? Tudyk played the Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman, who tried to provoke Jackie, and he plays entirely against type in his role, albeit a relatively minor one.

Special effects: N/A-

Soundtrack: 6.2/10- Although the score was the typical American sports movie fare, it fit the tone of the film well.

Comedy: 7.8/10- 42 had a surprising amount humor, all of which was used well.


Overall: 8.3/10: 42 is the baseball movie that baseball fans have been waiting for and it is one the best dramas in recent memory, an absolute must watch for baseball fans; it gets almost everything right.

Closing comments: It is difficult to determine what non-fans of baseball will think of the film because I love baseball and therefore I am bias, however fans of period drama films would most likely enjoy it as well as fans of great movies in general.

Recommended for: Baseball fans, Drama fans, Biopic fans,

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Oblivion Review.

Thoughts: Starring Tom Cruise and from the director that brought us the visually stunning Tron: Legacy, comes Oblivion, a sci-fi action thriller that is a surprisingly fun ride. First off, I have to say that the movie looks amazing! Particularly in the beginning of the movie because the special effects where just so great to look at. Joseph Kosinski has to be one of the best visual directors around because, even though Oblivion lacks the human element, the movie has awesome visuals. Something that I do not usually bring up in my reviews is how memorable a movie is, and even though most of this review was written not long after watching the film, two weeks after watching the film, I almost forgot that I ever even watched the movie, which is a not a good sign for a film’s quality. The reason behind the lack memorability is that Oblivion was lacking in characters and it was derivative in story. Despite this, the movie was fun, entertaining, and had fantastic visuals, which saves the movie.

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski
Genre: Sci-Fi, Thriller, Action, Action Adventure,
Release Date: April 10, 2013
Running Time: 124 minutes
MMPA rating: PG-13


The Good: Visual spectacle, Excellent performance from Tom Cruise, Awesome techno soundtrack by M83, Somewhat unexpected plot twists, Fun action scenes,

The Bad: Lackluster third Act, Slightly predictable towards the end, Derivative story, Forgettable characters,

Note: The trailer contains too many spoilers, which is why I did not post it.

Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
In the year 2077, Tech 49 Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) is one of the last drone repairmen stationed on Earth. Jack tells us that the planet was nearly destroyed sixty years ago, during a war against a race of alien invaders known as Scavengers ("Scavs"). The Scavs destroyed the moon, causing massive earthquakes and tsunamis, and then launched their invasion. They were only defeated by the use of nuclear weapons, which left most of the planet irradiated and uninhabitable. The few surviving humans migrated to a large space station called the "Tet," a massive tetrahedral space station that orbits the Earth, which is powered using energy harvested on Earth by giant ocean-borne power stations that generate fusion power from seawater before migration to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. From Tower 49, a base standing above the remains of the northeastern United States, Jack and his partner and lover Victoria "Vika" Olsen (Andrea Riseborough) work as a team to maintain the autonomous drones that defend the power stations from the few remaining Scav bandits. They receive their orders from Sally (Melissa Leo), their mission commander, who is stationed on the Tet. Jack flies recon and repair missions to the surface, while Vika supervises from Tower 49, a home at around 3000 feet (1000 meters) above the sea. The two expect to leave Earth and join the other survivors on the Tet in two weeks. Although Jack and Vika had their memories wiped five years earlier for security reasons, Jack has recurring dreams about meeting a mysterious woman at the Empire State Building before the war - which was before he was born. Jack keeps a secret retreat in a forested area he sometimes visits.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 6.4/10- The first two thirds of Oblivion are just great. The film gives enough time for setup and world building, yet never feels slow or dragging. There are few characters in the film, which actually works in the movie's favor because less characters where left underdeveloped, however only Cruise’s character seemed to have been developed at all. The twist later in the film is quite good and almost a little surprising. The sci-fi world Oblivion is familiar to sci-fi fans like myself, but it does not feel very derivative until the later portion of the film.
Even though the action scene towards the end was great, I just was not into the movie by that point, it really started to lose steam for some reason because I did not care what happened to the characters in the last Act. Although I cannot pinpoint what movies Oblivion's ending is similar to, I felt as though I had seen it before.

Action: 7.7/10- Even though I began to lose interest in the movie during the big action scene, it was well filmed and fun nevertheless. There are a few other action scenes that are all well filmed and directed, especially the flying craft chase.

Acting: 7.2/10- Despite the lack of actors in the film, Tom Cruise completely carries Oblivion by himself that is not to say however that the other cast members are lacking. Olga Kurylenko was decent in role and Andrea Riseborough was decent in her role. There is another actor that was revealed in the trailer that really should not have been because it is a spoiler, but you know who I am talking about, and of course, he was good, although I felt he was phoning it in.

Special effects: 9.3/10- While not the most impressive in terms of scale, the movie looks amazing. Similar to Joseph Kosinski's previous work on Tron: Legacy, Oblivion is a visual treat. As a sci-fi that loves practical effects, Oblivion uses a surprising amount of practical (or at least I believe those where practical effects, if not, they where amazing digital ones for sure) alongside digital ones for a fantastic combination, especially when watching the movie on Blu-Ray.

Soundtrack: 8.5/10- Similar to how Joseph Kosinski got Daft Punk to compose the score for Tron: Legacy, another French techno band, M83, composed the score of Oblivion and it was great! Several of the tracks reminded me of Tron: Legacy and I wish there were more of them.

Comedy: N/A- Except for one or two jokes, there is not much humor in the film.

Would I Watch This Again: There is nothing in Oblivion that warrants another viewing, unless I happen to catch on TV a several years from now.

Overall: 7.3/10- Overall, despite its derivativeness and weak third Act, Oblivion is a lot of fun for sci-fi fans and worth watching for the visuals alone if you are interested.

Closing comments: Although drawing from other science fiction films, Oblivion is entertaining enough to warrant a rent for sci-fi fans.

Recommended for: Sci-Fi fans, Action fans, Thriller fans, Tom Cruise fans,

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

World War Z Review

Thoughts: World War Z, a zombie action thriller that delivered at the box office, but it is a good movie? Behind the scenes World War Z had some issues in production with producer and star, Brad Pitt, having major disagreements with director Marc Forster. The result was a delay of six months and a complete rewrite and reshoot of last 30 minutes of the film, and from what I have read about the original ending, the new ending is much better. Also World War Z is an adaptation of Max Brooks' novel of the same name, and from what I have heard from friends and the internet, the name is the only thing that the novel and the film have in common.
As for the movie itself, World War Z is a zombie movie that made a non-fan of the genre enjoy the film. Unless I am shooting them in video games like Black Ops, zombies are not something that I have much interest in. The concept of zombies in general is absurd and not something that I would even consider science fiction, or at least the ones in World War Z make no sense (supernatural ones make more sense in context though). The Walking Dead is only zombie related film/show that I am somewhat interested in, only because a few of my friends like it. Regardless, World War Z made me suspend my disbelief for the two hour thrill ride.
One of the best and most surprise aspects of World War Z is how incredibly fast the movie starts. After brief setup of his family, the movie takes off and turns into an intense ride that rarely slows down.

A common compliant about World War Z is the lack of gore and the fact that zombies do not eat people. With the exception of one scene, the violence did not appear censored for the PG-13 rating that much. Seriously, why do zombie movies need to be over-the-top gory anyway? There is nothing wrong with that but suspense and thrills are what makes any film of its kind to be "scary" not the gore. Plus, the type of zombies used bit people to infect them almost instantly, not eat them. Another compliant is that there are a lot of zombie movie clichés, and since I have not seen many zombie movies (unless Invasion of the Body Snatchers counts), the zombie clichés are mostly new to me. Also fans of shows like the Walking Dead will find the movie not so impressive in comparison.

Directed by: Marc Forster
Genre: Action, Thriller, Zombie, Action Thriller, Horror,
Release Date: June 21, 2013
Running Time: 116 minutes
MMPA rating: PG-13


The Good: A few genuine thrills, Brad Pitt's performance is excellent, Lightning fast start, Impressive action scenes, Great tension, Made zombies entertaining for non-fans of the genre, Unique tone, Easy to become engaged in the story,

The Bad: A few dumb parts, One zombie was more humorous than horrifying, Occasionally predictable,



Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
Former UN employee Gerry Lane, his wife Karin and their two daughters are in heavy Philadelphia traffic when the city is attacked by zombies. As chaos spreads, the Lanes escape to Newark, New Jersey and take refuge in an apartment, home to a couple with a young son, Tommy. UN Deputy Secretary-General Thierry Umutoni—an old friend of Gerry's—sends a helicopter that extracts the Lanes and Tommy to a U.S. Navy vessel in the Atlantic where scientists and military personnel are analyzing the worldwide outbreaks. Dr. Andrew Fassbach posits that the plague is a virus, and that development of a vaccine depends on finding the origin. Gerry reluctantly agrees to help Fassbach find the outbreak's source after it is made clear that he and his family will be removed from the ship if he does not.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 6.9/10- World War Z's plot is probably the film's weakest aspect, albeit still a fun story. Brad Pitt's character is given enough motivation for his actions and he is a likeable character. Throughout the film, some parts are kind of telegraphed and I saw them coming 15 minutes ahead of time, and other minor things where just kind of dumb. However, the resolution to the plot was satisfying and intriguing. Other than that, the story delivers an interesting take on the zombie genre that makes me interested enough to want a sequel, which is coming in the near future.

Action: 8.1/10- Even though Marc Forster's overuse of shaky-cam is present, for the most part, the shaky-cam actually added to the intensity, which is rare for me to admit. Some of the action was a little too dark as well, but that was not much of a problem. The big action scenes are mostly revealed in the trailer and they serve their purpose well enough. Thankfully Forster's action direction is a vast improvement compared to how he ruined the James Bond film, Quantum of Solace.


Acting: 7.8/10- Brad Pitt's performance was great and much better than the average action star, and I am not even a Pitt fan. Israeli actress, Daniella Kertesz, did a fine job in her role. Most of the other actors did their job well, although few other actors where noticeably that great. There is one zombie in particular that was unintentionally humorous when I assume he was attempting to be creepy, but the other zombies actors where twitchy and zombie like. Also, getting to see Peter Capaldi as a W.H.O. Doctor was cool, which I posted about here and his performance was very good in his minor role. 


Special effects: 8.0/10- Despite the horribly fake looking effects on the World War Z trailer, the effects where overall impressive. The effects for the mass hoards of zombies are decent and above average, but not mind blowing. There is a surprising amount of practical effects and makeup used for the zombies, which worked well for what the movie was going for. Rarely did I notice that the zombies in the close quarters scenes where CGI.

Soundtrack: 5.0/10- Marco Beltrami's score was forgettable and never added much to the film's intensity, except for the obligatory rip-off of Inception's BWAA music.

Comedy: 2.1/10- Except for a few a couple of unintentionally funny moments, I am not sure if I laughed during the entire film, although that was not a negative.

Would I Watch This Again: While being enjoyable, World War Z is the type of movie that I would not care to see again until the sequel rolls around and then I will probably give it another shot.

Overall: 7.8/10- While World War Z might not be a good adaptation of the novel or even a good zombie movie, what the film is, is a thrilling action film that turned out to be better than expected and an enjoyable experience for non-zombie-fans like myself.

Closing comments: World War Z is currently the surprisingly good movie of the year and one of the better action movies (comic book films not included) in recent memory.

Recommended for: Action fans, Thriller fans, Zombie fans, Brad Pitt fans,

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

 

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Rear Window Review.

Thoughts: Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece of suspense, Rear Window is about L. B. "Jeff" Jeffries, a photographer that broke his leg in an accident and is now confined to his apartment room for the next several weeks. To past the time, Jeff watches the people in his neighborhood and, in doing so, discover that one of his neighbors is conducting some usual activity, and a mystery ensues.
Rear Window is a one of the few films that has influenced me as a film critic. Although it never "change what I believed" or anything like that, Rear Window did show me the power of suspense and how important of a narrative device suspense is. Ever since watching Rear Window almost two years ago, the suspense thriller genre has been one of my favorites, particularly anything made by the great Alfred Hitchcock. If you have any interest in filmmaking, critiquing, acting, or just want to see a quality movie, I employ you to watch Rear Window. While the movie may start slow by today's standards, it turns into one of the most edge-of-your-seat suspense works of all-time. I have yet to see a film that matches Rear Window in terms of quality suspense and intelligent mystery.


Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Genre: Suspense, Mystery
Release Date: August 1, 1954 (1954-08-01)
Running Time: 112 minutes
MMPA rating: PG


The Good: Incredibly suspenseful, Involving mystery, Unique way it was filmed, Oscar worthy performance from Stewart, Original concept, Influenced my critiquing skills, Grace Kelly is better than ever, Masterpiece of quality suspense,

The Bad:

Note: The trailer below is misleading and contains some spoilers. Just watch the movie.



Plot: The following plot summery is copied from Wikipedia.com.
Note: I have less than the usual amount of the description plot because this is a Spence mystery and any spoilers could ruin the movie. If you are sure ,from I have said above, that you want to watch the movie do not read below so that you will not know what is going to happen in the movie.
After breaking his leg during a dangerous assignment, professional photographer L. B. "Jeff" Jeffries (James Stewart) is confined in his Greenwich Village apartment, using a wheelchair while he recuperates. His rear window looks out onto a small courtyard and several other apartments. During a summer heat wave, he passes the time by watching his neighbors, who keep their windows open to stay cool. The tenants he can see include a dancer, a lonely woman he nicknames "Miss Lonelyheart", a songwriter, several married couples, and Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr), a wholesale jewelry salesman with a bedridden wife.
After Thorwald makes repeated late-night trips carrying his sample case, Jeff notices that Thorwald's wife is gone and sees Thorwald cleaning a large knife and handsaw. Later, Thorwald ties a large packing crate with heavy rope and has moving men haul it away. Jeff discusses these observations with his wealthy socialite girlfriend Lisa Fremont (Grace Kelly) and his insurance company home-care nurse Stella (Thelma Ritter), and becomes obsessed with their theory that Thorwald murdered his wife. Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 10/10- Even though Rear Window's mystery is not necessarily the best mystery, the way in which the mystery and story are told is masterful. Hitchcock uses a unique perspective to tell the story. For nearly the entire film, the movies takes place from the one room that Jeff is in. Because of the unique perspective, the audience is along for the ride with Jeff and the audience only knows what Jeff knows about the mystery, therefore the viewer is easily wrapped up in the suspense and story. Rear Window does start slowly, which is the only minor compliant, but that was not an issue for me.

Action: N/A-

Acting: 9.7/10- James Stewart is reliably excellent as Stewart always is, although he seemed particularly Oscar Worthy in this performance. Grace Kelly is beautifully amazing in her role, and for the time, she is one of the best heroines of cinema, despite her smaller role. The other actors in the film where all very good.

Special effects: N/A-

Soundtrack: N/A- Rear Window only uses a true soundtrack in the opening and closing title. The rest of the music in the film comes from the surroundings, like someone playing the piano or playing a record.

Comedy: 5.6/10- It is not a comedy but Stewart's wit is always humorous.

Would I Watch This Again: Oddly enough, I have yet to watch the film more than once, however I would like to change that in the near future.

Overall: 9.7/10- Overall, Rear Window is a masterpiece of cinema, the best work of the era, and my personal favorite Alfred Hitchcock film, in short, watch Rear Window!

Closing comments: Even if you are not a fan of old classic films, Rear Window is a must watch if you have any interest in movies.

Recommended for: Anyone, Suspense fans, Mystery fans, Hitchcock fans, James Stewart fans,

Click here to check out more of our movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any please sent an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Brave Review.

Thoughts: Brave, what is generally considered by many critics to be one of Pixar's worst movies not named Cars. My opinion of Pixar has been a mixed one for sure. While I am not the biggest fan of their work, a few of their movies are quite good, particularly the Incredibles and the Toy Story trilogy.

Brave's first 30 minutes where surprisingly good, setting up some interesting character, which made me wonder why most critics where not thrilled about the movie, then, at the 30 minute mark, the movie went completely downhill into a complete kid's movie. While Brave was not a complete "Disney Princess" movie, there where certainly elements that made it feel that way, which obviously did not appeal to me in the slightest. There was a huge missed opportunity with the movie because of the direction it took.

Something else to take note of is that I usually enjoy movies set in Scotland since some my ancestors come from there, although all of my ancestors immigrated before American even became a country, but that is beside the point. In terms of how it looked, the Scottish setting looked excellent.

Directed by: Mark Andrews and Brenda Chapman

Genre: Animation, Fantasy, Adventure, Comedy

Release Date: June 22, 2012 (2012-06-22)

Running Time: 93 minutes

MMPA rating: PG

 

The Good: Great first 30 minutes, Visually striking animation,

 

The Bad: Falls apart after the first 30 minutes, Half of the humor falls flat,

Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
In Scotland, a young Princess named Merida of the clan Dunbroch is given a longbow by her father, King Fergus, for her fifth birthday, to her mother Queen Elinor's dismay. While practicing, Merida ventures into the woods to fetch a stray arrow, where she encounters a will-o'-the-wisp. Soon afterwards, Mor'du, a giant demon-bear, attacks the family. Merida escapes on horseback with Elinor, while Fergus fights off the bear at the cost of his left leg. Eleven years later, Merida has become a free-spirited, headstrong sixteen-year-old with much younger identical triplet brothers, Hamish, Huburt, and Harris. Elinor informs her that she is to be betrothed to one of her father's allied clans, against her will. Reminding Merida of a legend about a prince who had ruined his own kingdom by pride and refusal to follow his father's wishes, Elinor warns her that failure to consent to the marriage could harm Dunbroch, but Merida is still unhappy with the arrangement.

Watch the movie to see what happens next.

 

Plot: 5.0/10- The plot is Brave's weakest aspect because after the first 30 minutes, it completely went off the rails smack into a kid's movie. Some of the mother/daughter relationship part was done well, and the ending almost brought the movie back to its previous level, but, in the end, the story was not impressive.

 

Action: 5.3/10- There was some action and it was animated well, but nothing noteworthy.

 

Acting: 6.4/10- According to critics that know what Scottish and Irish accents sound like, Kelly Macdonald as Merida sounded more Irish than Scottish, even though Kelly is Scottish. Other than that, her performance as decent I suppose, nothing remarkable though. Billy Connolly as King Fergus was the best actor in the cast, giving an often humorous performance. All of the other voice actors where neither good or bad, just kind of there. Overall, Pixar's films usually have a strong voice cast, but this one disappointed.

Art Style: 9.5/10- In typical Pixar fashion, the animation is positively brilliant! From Merida's realistic hair, to the detail of the Scottish castle, the animation was fantastic. My only problem is that the bear looked subpar to the rest of the animation.

Soundtrack: 7.9/10- Patrick Doyle's Scottish inspired soundtrack is often quite good, however there where few memorable tracks in the film.

 

Comedy: 6.9/10- There where several moments where I did laugh-out-loud, however the rest of the humor just kind of fell flat. However children will no doubt enjoy the movie a lot.

Would I Watch This Again: No, there is absolutely no reason to watch it again.

Overall: 5.8/10- Overall Brave had the potential to be one of Pixar's better movies, but alas, it failed. While it is not Pixar's worst movie by any means, it is just generic and lacking of anything remarkable. 

Closing comments: Although certain demographics, like girls and children, will certainly find more enjoyment out of the movie, it is still worth watching if you are a Pixar fan, just for the animation alone.  

Recommended for: Pixar fans, Disney fans, Fantasy fans, Animation fans,

Below is a review by one of my favorite film critics, Jeremy Jahns, and I have to say that I agree with just about everyone he has to say about Brave. 

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.



If you want to contact us or have any question please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Review.

Thoughts: Since Joss Whedon's Agents of SHIELD is premiering tomorrow, it seemed like a good time to review one of Whedon's many fantastic works, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is a internet film created by Joss Whedon (aka King of Nerds), who directed and wrote The Avengers. During the writer's strike of 2008 Joss Whedon and his brother Zack had the idea to create something small and inexpensive, yet professionally done, in a way that would circumvent the issues that were being protested during the strike, so they made Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. The movie was originally released in three parts, however it has since been released as a full 42 minute movie. Because of this, you can watch the entire movie on YouTube, and I have the video posted below. Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is a deconstruction, satire, and parody of the superhero genre, and leave it to Whedon to make it a musical. As I have said before, I cannot stand musicals in general, however, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog managed to be the only musical that I genuinely enjoy. The songs, humor, and story are all perfectly executed with Whedon's usual wit and likeable characters.
Since the movie is a satire, the tone is intentionally corny and over-the-top, which is one of reasons why the movie is positively hilarious!


Directed by: Joss Whedon
Genre: Comedy, Musical, Superhero
Release Date: July 15, 2008 (2008-07-15) – July 20, 2008
Running Time: 42 minutes
MMPA rating: Would be PG-13


The Good: Several hilarious jokes and songs, Witty dialogue and humor, One particularly excellent song, Perfect ending, Unique story, Completely the opposite of what you would expect, Catchy songs,

The Bad:



Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
Dr. Horrible is filming an entry for his video blog, giving updates on his schemes and responding to various emails from his viewers. Asked about the "her" that he often mentions, he launches into a song about Penny, the girl he likes from the laundromat ("My Freeze Ray").
The song is cut short by his "evil moisture buddy" Moist, who brings up a letter from Bad Horse, the leader of the Evil League of Evil. The letter informs Dr. Horrible that his application for entry into the League will be evaluated, and that they will be watching for his next heinous crime ("Bad Horse Chorus").
The following day, Horrible prepares to steal a case of wonderflonium for his time-stopping Freeze Ray by commandeering the courier van using a remote control device. Penny happens to be on the same street ("Caring Hands"), and appears asking him to sign a petition to turn a condemned city building into a homeless shelter. However, the remote requires his attention, and he appears uninterested in her and her cause. As Penny leaves, Horrible is conflicted, but opts to steal the wonderflonium, telling himself that 'A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do' ("A Man's Gotta Do").
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 8.6/10- Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog's story contains a surprising amount of depth and commentary on the superhero genre, despite the absurd concept and setting. The characters are likeable and well developed considering the amount of time given to each one. Unlike most superhero movies, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is from the perspective of the villain, Dr. Horrible, which makes the movie unique in terms of how it executes the narrative devices. Also the songs manage to progress the story as well. It is also important to mention that the ending is basically perfect. Additionally, the ending is amazing, one of the best ones I have seen.


Action: 4.0/10- Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is not an action movie, however there is some humor through Captain Hammer beating the crap out of Dr. Horrible.

Acting: 8.2/10- Neil Patrick Harris as Dr. Horrible plays Dr. Horrible perfectly, and he can sing well. Nathan Fillion as Captain Hammer gives a hilariously hammy performance in his role. His singing is also intentionally hammy and over the top. No one else could have played the role better than Fillion. Felicia Day as Penny is that extremely likeable character that most of Joss Whedon's work typically has, and, of course, Felicia kills it in her role. Also she is the best singer of the group, although the others are also great. Fun fact, Joss Whedon originally considered playing Captain Hammer but decided to bring in Fillion for the part instead.

Special effects: 7.3/10- The movie does not use many effects and much of the set design is intentionally corny, however the few effects that are present get the job done.

Soundtrack: 9.5/10- As I have said before I highly dislike musicals but Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is an exception. The songs are often humorous, witty, and superbly executed in the scene. Several of the songs are among my favorites of all-time, especially "Brand New Day."

Comedy: 8.6/10- Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is an often hilarious film! Although the movie is not an entire laugh-fest, Whedon's typical genius sense of humor is present in both the songs and dialogue.

Would I Watch This Again: After watching Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog over a year ago, I have seen it at least three or fours times, as well as listening to the entire soundtrack a few more times, so yeah, I will watch and re-watch the movie many times.

Overall: 8.9/10- Overall Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is fun, entertaining, witty and the best parody of the superhero genre around, plus the ending is amazing, basically watch the movie!

Closing comments: Coming from a guy that usually dislikes all musicals, the comic book jokes and reversal of the normal narrative structure makes Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog one of my favorite movies ever.

Recommended for: Joss Whedon fans, Superhero fans, Comic Book fans, Musical fans, Nathan Fillion fans,

Warning: The movie does contain a few inappropriate and suggestive comments, although it would only be rated PG-13 or the standard modern comedy in terms of content.

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you have seen the movie, please comment and let me know what you think. Also full spoiler comments are encouraged, especially about the ending.

If you want to contact us or have any question please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

The Girl Who Leapt Through Time Review.

Thoughts: The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is an anime adaption of the 1967 novel of the same name. The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is a film that I happened to come across on several "Best Anime Movies" lists, and then I found it on YouTube and decided to give it a shot not knowing much about the film beyond the obvious time-travel element in the title. Was the film any good? Yes, most definitely yes; it is easily one of the best animated movies I have ever seen. Also, if you do not like anime, try not to think of the film as an "anime" since the art style is not over-the-top like many films or shows.

 

 

Directed by: Mamoru Hosoda

Genre: Sci-fi, Fantasy, Comedy, Time-Travel,

Release Date: July 15, 2006

Running Time: 98 minutes

MMPA rating: PG-13

 

The Good: Incredibly unique concept, Quirky sense of humor, Likeable characters, Fluid and charming animation style, Strong English dub cast, Several hilarious scenes, Unexpected plot twists, Fantastic soundtrack, Relatable story,

 

The Bad: Occasionally focuses too much on the teen drama,

Note: Do not watch the trailer, just watch the movie, it is great.



Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
Seventeen-year-old Makoto Konno (Riisa Naka/Emily Hirst) lives with her family in the Shitamachi area of Tokyo, Japan. Makoto lives with her parents and younger sibling Miyuki (Yuki Sekido/Shannon Chan-Kent). Her aunt Kazuko Yoshiyama (Sachie Hara/Saffron Henderson), is an art restorer at the Tokyo National Museum. One day, when Makoto discovers a message written on a blackboard at her high school, she inadvertently falls upon a mysterious, walnut-shaped object. On her way home, Makoto is ejected into a railroad crossing when the brakes on her bicycle fail and is struck by a train. She is transported a few minutes back in time to before the accident. Kazuko explains to Makoto that she has the power to "time-leap", to literally leap through time. At first, Makoto uses her power extravagantly to avoid being late, to get perfect grades on tests, and even relive a single karaoke session for an entire hour, but Makoto soon discovers that her actions can adversely affect others.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 9.8/10- The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is obviously about time-travel, however it is not a massive time traveling adventure along the lines of Doctor Who or Back to the Future. It is more about changing things that have happened relatively recently in the user's past and therefore alternate versions of themselves are not present. At first you might expected a fun romp, *Minor Spoiler* the plot takes several surprisingly dark turns later in the film. *End Spoiler* While the film does not delve that deeply into the mechanics of time-travel, the explanation is acceptable and works for what the film tries to accomplish, because time-travel is not the real focus of the plot; it is the led character Makoto Konno's life and how she uses her new found power for smaller things such as avoiding unwanted conversations and other trivial things. Actually, there are many times in everyday life where I wish I could go back in time just to change a small mistake I have made and The Girl Who Leapt Through Time really capitalizes on that concept and the relatability many audiences members have. Occasionally, the film focuses a little too much on the teen drama and romance, and one minor point is not explained as much I would have liked, but overall the plot is incredibly clever and smart.

Action: N/A-

Acting: 9.2- The Girl Who Leapt Through Time has one of the stronger English Dub casts I have heard. Emily Hirst does an excellent job as Makoto giving the character a certain likeability that made the character seem like a real person. As for the other members of the cast, there was not a single weak performance of the group.

Art Style: 9.6/10- While it is not the most detailed animation, Madhouse productions produced some of the most crisp and fluid animation to date. Except for a few parts, the animation is surprisingly restrained in terms of being unrealistic, which gives the film more believability.


Soundtrack: 8.4/10- Although some the songs that where used became a little annoying at times, they worked well to set the tone and emotional for the film. The score by Kiyoshi Yoshida is excellent, and it perfectly compliments the film's themes.

Comedy: 8.2/10- The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is a boarder line comedy featuring several hilarious scenes as well as a quirky sense of humor throughout. While you may not find yourself laughing through the entirety of the film, there is plenty to never make the audience bored. Some of the themes in the film reminded me of Groundhog Day, except darker.

Would I Watch This Again: Yes, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time will be a film that I re-watch several times.

Overall: 9.3/10- Overall The Girl Who Leapt Through Time is an original and fun time-travel movie with several surprising twists. Anyone interest in high-school (not usually my preferred genre) and time-travel need to give the film a viewing, even anime is not typically your thing.

Closing comments: Basically, what the film, below is the entire film uploaded on YouTube in good quality.

Recommended for: Sci-fi fans, Time-Travel fans, Anime fans, Animation fans, School drama fans, Comedy fans,

Warning: Although it is animated, the film is rated PG-13 and therefore not recommended for those under than age.

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.



If you want to contact us or have any question please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Jack the Giant Slayer Review.

Thoughts: Jack the Giant Slayer is a retelling of the classic "Jack and the Beanstalk" story, except on an epic scale. There is not a lot to say about Jack the Giant Slayer, it was fun, entertaining, and an all around solid adventure movie, but there is nothing particularly special or original about the story except that it was told well enough with a lot of adventure.



Directed by: Bryan Singer
Genre: Fantasy, Adventure,
Release Date: March 1, 2013
Running Time: 114 minutes
MMPA rating: PG-13


The Good: Fun adventure throughout, Epic final battle, Surprisingly dark at times,

The Bad: Predictable story, Overly cartoony giants,



Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
In the Kingdom of Cloister, Jack, a young farm boy, is fascinated by the legend of Erik, an ancient king who defeated an army of invading giants from a realm in the sky by controlling them with a magical crown. At the same time, Princess Isabelle becomes fascinated with the same legend.
Ten years later, Jack goes into town to sell his horse to support his uncle's farm. There, Jack spots Isabelle and develops a crush on her, after defending her honor from a group of thugs. Meanwhile, Lord Roderick returns to his study, only to find that a monk has robbed him. The monk offers Jack some magic beans he stole from Roderick as collateral for Jack's horse. Back at the castle, Isabelle quarrels with her father, King Brahmwell, as she wants to explore the kingdom, but he wants her to stay and marry Roderick. Likewise, Jack's uncle scolds him for being foolish before throwing the beans on the floor and leaving the house.
Determined to be free, Isabelle sneaks out of the castle and seeks shelter from the rain in Jack's house. As it rains, one of the beans takes root and grows into a massive beanstalk that carries the house and Isabelle into the sky as Jack falls to the ground.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 5.2/10- Predictable but fun story delivers the thrills you would expect. The retelling of the classic story was well done with plenty of new material added to make it more epic. Pacing of the film was quite good, and there was never a dull moment. The dialogue left much to be desire because a lot of it was cheesy.

Action: 7.8/10- The final battle was well filmed, albeit CGI heavy and some of the other fights were fun. While there was nothing amazing, the action gets the job done well.


Acting: 6.5/10- Nicholas Hoult gives the standout best performance of the cast giving a solid. Ewan McGregor gave a fun performance; his character was fun to watch. Eleanor Tomlinson did not have a lot to do in the film, but she played the beautiful princess role well. Stanley Tucci and his lackey were over-the-top and very cartoonish, fortunately neither character was used all that much.   

Special effects: 6.7/10- Even though much of the movie looked great, the giants were far too cartoony. The giants looked like something out Sherk, not a live-action film.

Soundtrack: 7.5/10- John Ottman produces a fun adventurous soundtrack to match the adventurous tone of the film.

Comedy: 6.8/10- While some of the fell flat, there were a few humorous parts.

Would I Watch This Again: Probably not, the movie is fun but forgettable.

Overall: 6.2/10- Overall Jack the Giant Slayer is a fun romp that is sure to entertain and turns out better than most would expect.

Closing comments: While nothing particularly special, Jack the Giant Slayer is a watchable and fun movie that never bored me.

Recommended for: Fantasy fans, Adventure fans, Action Adventure fans,


Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Star Trek Into Darkness Review.

Thoughts: J.J. Abrams' fun 2009 reboot of the Star Trek franchise made the franchise relevant for the modern era, and four years later we finally have the long awaited Star Trek Into Darkness, but was it worth the wait?

After hearing of the mixed to positive reviews, my expectations for Into Darkness where mixed, I did not know what to expect from the movie. Upon watching it, I have to say that it did not disappoint in the slightest. While some of the die-heart Trekkies that are still mad about Abrams' reboot will have nothing new to enjoy, more open-minded fans of the franchise and fans of the reboot will have plenty to love, because Into Darkness was a blast! Although I did quite enjoy Abrams first Star Trek film, it lacked a strong villain that it so sorely needed, but Into Darkness completely kills it in that respect. Benedict Cumberbatch is far and above the best part of the entire movie; he absolutely killed it in his mysterious role as the film's villain and because the character's identity is a mysterious, I shall refer to the character as Cumberbatch. Despite this, Cumberbatch should have had much more screen-time because his character needed it. Cumberbatch played a rather compelling villain and throughout most of the movie I was actually more on Cumberbatch's side than Kirk and Spock's because he had justification for his actions. Thus far in 2013, Cumberbatch is the best villain of the year, although he will likely be bested by Hiddleston in the upcoming Thor: the Dark World by Loki/Tom Hiddleston.

Even though I was unfortunately spoiled as to the true identity of Cumberbatch's character, I already had my suspicions, so that did not detract from my enjoyment of the film. Star Trek Into Darkness is a film that deserves a full spoiler discussion, however this review will be spoiler free and, if the readers are interested, I will write a full spoiler discussion on the film in the future.

Being a fan of the franchise, Into Darkness featured many references that only those that have seen some of the old movies/TV show can appreciate, or, in the case of some Trek purists, despise. If you are one of those fans that dislike the movie because of the attempts to mimic the original, that is understandable.

Something of major importance to mention is that J.J. Abrams is directing Star Wars Ep. 7, which everyone already knows. Because of this, I was hoping to see if Abrams has the directing chops to pull off Star Wars and I have to say that Into Darkness' direction was rather impressive. Except for a few too many dang lens flares, Abrams did a great job.

One a side note, why is there no colon between "Trek" and "Into" in the title? I looked it up, the official name has no colon, so that makes the movie's title look weird.

Directed by: J. J. Abrams

Genre: Sci-Fi, Action, Action Adventure,

Release Date: May 17, 2013

Running Time: 133 minutes

MMPA rating: PG-13

The Good: Benedict Cumberbatch completely steals the show, Relentless pacing, Impressive action sequences, Superb directing by Abrams, Compelling villain, Tribble!, Several homages to classic Star Trek moments, Hilarious sense of humor, Brings back previously fantastic cast.

The Bad: Occasionally predictable, Minor plot holes,

Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.

In the year 2259, the Federation starship USS Enterprise has been sent to the planet Nibiru to study the development of primitive cultures. Captain James T. Kirk and Spock attempt to save the planet's inhabitants from a volcanic eruption. When Spock's life is endangered, Kirk violates the Prime Directive to rescue him, exposing the Enterprise to the planet's civilization. Kirk accuses Spock of showing little morality when they argue over the decision.

Summoned to Earth, Kirk loses command of the Enterprise as a result of his decision and Admiral Christopher Pike is reinstated as its commanding officer. When a secret Section 31 installation in London is bombed, Pike, Kirk, and Spock meet with Starfleet commanders to discuss the hunt for the culprit, Starfleet agent John Harrison, but Harrison attacks the meeting in a jumpship. Kirk destroys it, but Pike is killed and Harrison escapes by transporting to Kronos, the Klingon homeworld.

Watch the movie to see what happens next.

Plot: 8.1/10- As compelling of a villain Cumberbatch was, Into Darkness did have a great deal about Spock and Kirk's relationship. While that part was handled well, it is somewhat of a backtrack to what happened in the previous Trek movie with Spock and Kirk bickering. There where a few other minor aspects that where retreads of the previous Star Trek film as well. As for the main plot as a whole, it was quite good and well paced, even though some may not like the lightening pacing as much. Towards the end, there where a few minor plot holes and predictable parts that kind of detract from the movie. Other than those grievances, the rest of the plot is great and filled with fun and snappy dialogue, even if it is not as "deep" as some fans would like.

Action: 9.2/10- Abrams has really stepped up his action direction skills with Into Darkness. Most of the action sequences where riveting and well directed. There were only a few shots that were poorly framed or darkly lit. Cumberbatch's character was a beast in the action scenes and he was the main reason why many of the action scenes where as awesome as they were. Never before has there been this quality of action in a Star Trek film.

Acting: 8.5/10- As stated before, Cumberbatch was freaking awesome in his role. He had a menacing screen presence and made the character very compelling, although this is no surprise since Cumberbatch is amazing as Sherlock Holmes. The entire cast of the Enterprise from the previous film is great, without a single miscasting. Chris Pine as Captain James T. Kirk is even better than he was in the previous Trek film, and Zachary Quinto as Spock is good, but not particularly great in his role. Alice Eve, aka "Thumbnail Chick," was neither bad nor good in her role. Although no one else was noticeably bad, aside from Cumberbatch, the acting is not particularly special.

Special effects: 9.2/10- Although some of the effects are obviously CGI, the movie still looks great! The effects and setting are much improved compared to the previous Star Trek film. Fortunately, Abrams used a surprising amount of practical special effects and fully built sets, opposed to going all green screen.

Soundtrack: 9.2/10- The rendition of the classic Star Trek theme is done perfectly by Michael Giacchino and a few other tracks are homages to other Star Trek tracks from the past.

Comedy: 9.3/10- Star Trek Into Darkness is an often hilarious movie filled with humorous banter and quick quips.

Would I Watch This Again: While I would not consider buying the movie on Blu-Ray/DVD, Into Darkness was a lot of fun and certainly worth watching again.

Overall: 8.5/10- Overall Star Trek Into Darkness is a blast to watch and a fun space-adventure romp, however Cumberbatch is the main reason to watch the film because both his performance and character are the main things that make the movie memorable.

Closing comments: Some hardcore Trekkies and those who are not fans of Abrams first Star Trek will find little to like in the film, everyone else should enjoy the fun ride.

Recommended for: Sci-Fi fans, Star Trek fans, Cumberbatch fans, Action fans,

Please check back tomorrow for my review of the Wolverine.

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

The Wizard of Oz Review.

Thoughts: The Wizard of Oz, a classic that revolutionized the use of Technicolor and made fantasy films popular. Unlike many, I had never watched the entire Wizard of Oz movie when I was a kid, therefore I have no nostalgic attachment to the film and can give a completely unbiased review. While the Wizard of Oz was what I expected for the most part, it was not particularly special, except in the visual aspect, which was certainly spectacular. The story is simple, the acting is incredibly hammy, and the corniness was painful. Despite this, it did have some fun classic movie charm that made the movie amusing and occasionally fun. Something that is importannt to mention, is that I normally cannot stand musicals, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog being the only exception, so I am bias when it comes to musical. Normally I really do enjoy old classic films, even ones that could be considered corny today like the Adventures of Robin Hood, which was made a year before and was filmed in Technicolor. While I certainly see why the Wizard of Oz made such a big impact on film and culture at the time, it does not necessarily hold up well today, at least not without a lot nostalgia. Although musical fans would likely find much more from the film, I did find one or two of the songs bearable and not too terribly annoying, most of the singing, particularly the munchkins song, overstayed its welcome.
My favorite scene of the entire was the flying monkey attack because it was slightly darker in tone than the rest of the movie and the stunt was impressive for the time.


Directed by: Victor Fleming
Genre: Fantasy, Musical,
Release Date: August 25, 1939
Running Time: 101 minutes
MMPA rating: G


The Good: Impressive visuals for the time, Top notch production values, One decent song, Revolutionary,

The Bad: Painfully corny, Relies completely on nostalgia,




Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
In 1900, Kansas farmgirl Dorothy Gale lives with her Aunt Em, Uncle Henry and farmhands Hunk, Zeke and Hickory, but gets little attention and is told to stay out of the way. Land owner Miss Gulch arrives at the farm demanding that Dorothy's pet dog Toto be destroyed after he bit her. Fearing for Toto's life, Dorothy decides to run away from home. On the road, she meets Professor Marvel, a travelling showman who pretends to foresee Aunt Em falling deathly ill. Dorothy rushes home as a tornado forms nearby. Dorothy's family take shelter in the storm cellar, but, unable to get inside, Dorothy and Toto run into the house. Dorothy is knocked unconscious by debris, and wakes up to find that the house got swept up in the tornado and carried into the sky.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 6.1/10- There is not much to the story, it was very simple and straight, however it was original at the time. Sometimes it is difficult to critic some children's movies, since I have overlook many of the flaws, however there were some "family friendly" films from the time that do hold up well today, like the aforementioned Adventures of Robin Hood. The third act of the Wizard of Oz was superior to the rest of the movie because it lacked nearly as many songs. While the actual story was lacking the whimsical atmosphere was great and it did create a fun and visually appealing fantasy world. The movie did offer a few interesting allegories, similar to many classic children stories. *Spoiler* I found it almost kind of funny is that when Oz gave the Tin Man his "heart" Oz said, "A heart is not judged by how much you love; but by how much you are loved by others." Isn't that kind of a screwed up moral message? Maybe I am overthinking this, but it is not a general consensus that the message should be the other way around? *End Spoiler*


Action: N/A-


Acting: 3.5/10- Even though I will give the cast some slack because it was probably intentional, the acting was absurdly hammy. Much of it was painful to watch due to its corniness. Only Ray Bolger as the Scarecrow and Jack Haley as the Tin Man gave decent performances among the cast, and I suppose Judy Garland wasn't terrible, however the other cast members were too far over-the-top.


Special effects: 10/10- While many of the sets are clearly sets with painted backgrounds, for the time, the effects were the best. The size and detail of the sets and the was very well done and it uses color well to highlight certain aspects. The makeup work for Dorothy's companions was revolutionary at the time and it still holds up surprising well today. The Tin Man and Scarecrow were especially well done.


Soundtrack: 6.9/10- Considering that it is a musical, many of the songs were annoying to me, but a few songs were decent. The first one with the Tin Man had a classic Bing Crosby type style to it, so it was enjoyable, however the munchkin's songs overstayed its welcome.


Comedy: 6.2/10- There were a few scenes that I found humorous, although most of it lacked in humor.

Would I Watch This Again: Because it is a "classic," maybe many years from now.

Overall: 6.0/10- The Wizard of Oz is not intended for my demographic, because I never watched it as a kid and musicals are not my thing.  For what it is, the Wizard of Oz is not a bad kid's movie, however without the power of nostalgia there is not much there for older audiences, unless the songs are the major draw.

Closing comments: If you do still like the movie because you loved it as a kid, that's great, however for older audiences it does not hold up very well, other than the visuals.

Recommended for: Fantasy fans, Classic film fans, Musical fans,

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

 

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

G.I. Joe: Retaliation Review.

Thoughts: After G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra butchered everything good about the G.I. Joe franchise, my expectations for the sequel, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, was considerably low. To my surprise however, the movie was a ton of fun with awesome action scenes and a healthy dose of nostalgia. While G.I. Joe: Retaliation is nothing remarkable, it is certainly entertaining and a blast to watch.

The Rise of Cobra managed to really sucked, even with two great actors, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Christopher Eccleston. When I was a kid, I was a fan of all those old G.I. Joe TV shows and characters, fortunately, the Retaliation captured the spirit of the franchise and delivered some seriously awesome action. Despite what critics say, the first Transformers movie was a lot of fun, and the G.I. Joe captures a similar feeling that Transformers did, in terms of dumb fun that appeals to the viewer's nostalgia.


Directed by: Jon M. Chu
Genre: Action, Sci-Fi,
Release Date: March 28, 2013
Running Time: 110 minutes
MMPA rating: PG-13


The Good: Tons of action, Absurdly fun, Vast improvement over the previous film, Impressive action set pieces, Snake Eyes was finally cool, Good sense of humor, Well filmed action scenes,

The Bad: Really dumb plot points, Clichéd,



Plot: 5.2/10- G.I. Joe: Retaliation's plot is simple, but gets the job done to deliver a story with fun action. There are a few really stupid plot points that that do not make sense, although what do you expect from a movie like this. Despite some dumb plot points, the pacing is great, rarely slowing down and almost always fun. Also there is a twist that I did not expect.

Action: 9.5/10- The action in Retaliation is surprising well directed and framed. Except for a few darkly lit scenes and outlandish parts, the action is excellent. The ninja battles are freaking awesome, and the gun fights are a ton of fun. The mix of action is varied, which works well for the film.

Acting: 5.0/10- Dwayne Johnson as Roadblock gave a fun performance, although nothing special. Adrianne Palicki was solid as the attractive Lady Jay, and she is the only character with any character arc. Bruce Willis kind of phones it in, but Bruce Willis is still awesome in his limited role. The other actors are all OK, but not particularly great.

Special effects: 8.0/10- A few of the effects are not the most impressive and obviously CGI, but there was a surprising amount practical effects and stunt work used.

Soundtrack: 7.6/10- The rock/metal themes were perfect for the movie and made the action scenes even more fun.

Comedy: 7.8/10- Fortunately, the movie does not take itself seriously and the humor is usually quite good.

Would I Watch This Again: Typically, movies like Retaliation are not something I would care to see again, but I actually would want to watch it again.

Overall: 7.3/10- Overall G.I. Joe: Retaliation is good dumb fun, that will satisfy fans of the old show/comics and action junkies alike.

Closing comments: G.I. Joe: Retaliation certainly has its problems, but it is a lot of fun and that is what the movie needed to be.

Recommended for: Fans of the franchise, Action fans,


Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

 

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Life of Pi Review.

Thoughts: Despite Life of Pi's critical acclaim, I was still skeptical because the trailer was unimpressive and I was expecting an entirely different type of film. To my surprise, Life of Pi was a fun, adventure fantasy film, and one of the better films I have seen from 2012. For those, like myself, that have not read the book, the trailer kind of looks ridiculous and did not make me want to see the film, however I gave it a shot and enjoyed the movie quite a bit.


Directed by: Ang Lee
Genre: Adventure, Fantasy,
Release Date: November 21, 2012
Running Time: 127 minutes
MMPA rating: PG


The Good: Stunning visuals, Surprisingly humorous, Fun adventure, Realistic computer generated animals,

The Bad: Slow start,



Plot Summary: The first 30 minutes is a standard biography of how Pi's childhood up until when he is stranded on a boat with a tiger named Richard Parker. Watch the new see what happens next.


Plot: 8.1/10- The film is narrated at some points by Pi being asked about his experience by an author and at a few points it cuts back to him telling the story and that narrative was actually used effective to progress the story, unlike another recent film that shall not be named. Even though it was probably in the book, some of the first 30 minutes felt a little unnecessary to the main plot. There is a part that is between five to ten minutes that could have been cut. However those scenes mostly served a propose, but I still felt as if it could have been streamlined to have better pacing. After that beginning, the film turned into a surprisingly fun adventure and the pacing problem was fixed. I expected the movie to focus on his spiritual journey and I was pleasantly surprised that it was more about the actual journey than anything else, although Pi's character did progress well.
*Minor Spoiler* The film takes a shockingly dark turn near the end, which can be off putting to some viewers, however I was mostly indifference about it. *End Spoiler*

Action: 5.2/10- There is a spectacular ship sinking scene, which is done very well and some of the animals fought each other briefly. It is more of a high seas survival movie than an action film.

Acting: 7.2/10- Suraj Sharma, as sixteen year old Pi, receives the most screen of the different actors who played throughout his life, and he does a great job in his role, even if he did not have a lot of dialogue. The other actors were all good, but the tiger, Richard Parker, is the real star of the film.

Special effects: 9.5/10- While many of the effects are obviously computer generated, it is actually works due to the stylized nature of the film. The visuals are the best part of the movie and, from I have read, the 3D was spectacular. Despite the overall visuals being well made, the tiger and other animals are the best element of the special effects. For the most part, the tiger was believable, except when it was wet, which made it look obviously computer generated.


Soundtrack: 7.7/10- Mychael Danna's score compliments well and sets the tone that film tries to achieve.


Comedy: 7.8/10- After the opening joke about Pi's full name, which was very funny, most of the humor comes from the situational humor about Pi trying to cohabitate with the tiger.

Would I Watch This Again: Probably, although it will be a long time before I am interested enough to watch it again.

Overall: 7.9/10- Overall, Life of Pi surprised me. It was a fun adventure movie that managed to balance the spectacular visuals with the story, which is rare for "Eye Candy" films such of this.

Closing comments: While not quite as profound as some may say, Life of Pi is a fun adventure with a unique story and stunning visuals.

Recommended for: Fantasy fans, Adventure fans,


Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Divergent Teaser Trailer.

 

Divergent is a upcoming film based on the a recent young adult novel, and it has been compared to other similar books such as a Hunger Games. This 13 second teaser has to be one of the shortest teasers trailer I have ever seen, if my friends had not already told me the general idea behind the movie, I would have no idea what the heck is going on. However, from what I have heard, the movie could turn out to be fairly good, and I am certainly intrigued enough to watch it at some point. What are your thoughts? Please comment below and check out my other post today.

  

 

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More

Oz the Great and Powerful Review.

You voted for it, so here is my review for Oz the Great and Powerful.

Thoughts: Oz the Great and Powerful, the prequel to the classic, the Wizard of Oz. Sam Raimi brings the world of Oz to the big screen again, but does the movie succeed? Well, in some ways yes, most others no. Oz the Great and Powerful is a great mixed bag, some scenes are excellent and then other scenes just do not work at all. After the first 50 minutes I was invested in the characters, particularly the little CGIed China Girl, and James Franco as Oz was surprisingly great, and shockingly the CGI monkey was not annoying. Usually comedic CGI characters detract from a film and end up being annoying, but Zach Braff was one of the best parts. However, basically all of the main characters other than the three mentioned earlier where poorly developed and the actors who played were subpar, particularly Mila Kunis. There was a sizable portion of the film that felt as if it was not going anywhere. At one point the two best characters, China Girl and Finley the monkey, where not in the movie for a while and even though it mostly made sense in terms of the narrative, their presence was noticeably lacking.
The first 20 minutes of film were in black and white, 4x3 aspect ratio, similar to the original Wizard of Oz. It worked well, and made the reveal of Oz much more impressive, plus I always enjoy classic film making.
Something that almost everyone loved about the film was that the 3D was said to be spectacular, one of the best 3D films, however the transfer to 2D did not go so well. Many of the effects early in the film looked cheap in 2D.
At the time of watching this film, I had not seen the original Wizard of Oz, however I had seen the Tin Man miniseries and I knew the basic plot. I have since watched the film and the review for the original Oz will be coming soon.


Directed by: Sam Raimi
Genre: Fantasy, Adventure, Family
Release Date: March 8, 2013
Running Time: 130 minutes
MMPA rating: PG


The Good: James Franco was great, Two very likeable CGI characters, Some good humor in the first half, Unique visual style, One unexpected plot twist, Everything about the China Girl, Excellent soundtrack, Occasionally humorous,

The Bad: Weak performances by the witches, Predictable at times, Lacks tonal cohesion, Falls apart later during the middle, Unnecessarily drawn out parts, Underused characters,


Plot: The following plot summary is copied from Wikipedia.com.
In 1905 Kansas, Oscar "Oz" Diggs works as a small-time magician in a traveling circus. As a storm approaches, the circus strongman learns Oscar has flirted with his wife and goes to attack him. Oscar escapes in a hot air balloon, but is sucked into a tornado that takes him to the Land of Oz. There the witch Theodora believes him to be a wizard prophesied to overthrow the Wicked Witch who killed the King of Oz. En route to the Emerald City, Oscar flirts with Theodora, who falls in love with him, wishing to be his queen when she rules Oz. They encounter the flying monkey Finley, who pledges a life debt to Oscar when he saves Finley from a lion.
Watch the movie to see what happens next.


Plot: 6.2/10- Except for one plot twist, Oz the Great and Powerful's plot was predictable and simple, never ended up being something special. However, three characters in particular, where excellent and I was able to become invested in a few characters, which made the simple story much more enjoyable. Normally I am allergic to "cuteness" but I will admit, the China Girl was mighty dang cute and gave movie an emotional core.

Action: 5.0/10- Oz the Great and Powerful is not an action, as it is a fun family fantasy adventure, however there was one entertaining magical fight in the film.

Acting: 6.0/10- The acting is mostly a mixed bag. James Franco was excellent, he played the jerk aspect well and became more likeable as the film continued. Joey Kind and Zach Braff as the two computer generated characters where top notch, even if the effects for their characters was not the best. At first I was wondering why everyone hated Mila Kunis' performance because she was actually pretty good, later in the movie however, she was kind of awful. She was sorely miscast in her role. Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams gave mediocre performances that felt forced and very acted. The other actors were average at best.

Special effects: 7.9/10- The effects where kind of mixed bag. It probably look fantastic in 3D, but many of the effects could have been so much better. The CGI monkey character was alright, but a little too cartoonish, although that did not detract from the film. The other computer generated character, the China Girl, was done well, even if it was not the most impressive CGI I have seen. Although the visual style is a little jarring at first, because it looked like it was all filmed on a set, it started to grow on me and turned out pretty good overall.

Soundtrack: 8.5/10- Danny Elfman brings a perfect whimsical flare and brings the great world of Oz to life. The soundtrack may be the best aspect of the film.


Comedy: 7.2/10- During the first half of the film, there was a quite a bit of well placed humor, however the second half was lacking it.

Would I Watch This Again: Only when re-watching all of the Oz movies years from now would I consider revisiting it.

Overall: 6.3/10- Oz the Great and Powerful might not live of to the "great" in the name, it is nevertheless a fun and entertaining family adventure, despite its predictability.

Closing comments: I am a little torn about the film, some parts were great and others not so much, as a whole however, it had potential that it never reached.

Recommended for: Fantasy fans, Oz fans,

Click here to check out more of my movie reviews.

 

If you want to contact us or have any questions please send an e-mail to johnstarslayer@gmail.com.

Read More