77 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
One last chance for peace.
23 July 2017
Right after Rise of the Planet of the Apes one already knew that the story would continue, and that's where Dawn of the Planet of the Apes has come by. And if Rise of the Planet of the Apes only had come by in the same manner that any superhero origin story would have played out by setting up the tone for films yet to come, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes already has found itself more room to create a more distinctive identity. But being as I've never particularly been the hugest fan of the original film franchise, it's nice to see that these new films are able to form an identity of their own for it takes me by surprise how much I enjoy them. These aren't just mindless, disposable blockbusters that only find themselves living within the moment, these films leave behind an impact that calls out for far more - among many reasons I'm glad these new Planet of the Apes movies are around.

The ending of Rise of the Planet of the Apes already begged for more questions to be asked in regards to what was only going to be made of mankind's future as the apes have only found themselves growing in spontaneous numbers. The Simian flu has already decimated the human population whereas Caesar and the other enhanced apes are already making a community for themselves, attempting to live at peace away from the humans. Perhaps answers to questions being asked about whether or not the humans and apes will find themselves able to live within peace is only going to leave behind predictable answers, and yet it doesn't make the final product any less riveting for what it is - it also feels rewarding just watching how everything will build up. For as the first chapter had focused on how the apes had found themselves coming to be, this one only had found itself sitting within a broader canvas and thus the fact it calls for more possibilities only makes an exciting product.

In contrast to Rupert Wyatt's efforts behind telling the story present in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Matt Reeves coming into the director's chair has only found itself beneficial. For as functional as Rupert Wyatt's efforts may have been in allowing a story to come and set itself in motion, Reeves, best known at the time for Cloverfield and Let Me In, creates a far more distinguishing approach that not only has resulted in a better film than its predecessor, but has also left behind one of the better blockbusters in recent memory. Many of the highlights that we remember perfectly from the predecessor, whether it be Andy Serkis's performance as Caesar or the visual effects (although they are evidently more advanced in here) come back to shine, yet not without the clear calling for more because of the canvas that Reeves has created on the screen.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes finds itself spending far more time with its human characters while allowing the story of the apes to breathe in a life of their own. Because of this, it is easier to get a grasp on its own characters' motivations whether it range from Caesar's attempts to come at peace with the humans or Dreyfus's intention to wipe out their race to preserve humanity. In addition to having far more compelling human characters a cast that ranges from Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, and Jason Clarke, far more compelling antagonist motivations are present that ultimately allow for a greater character study all the way through because Reeves doesn't blindly paint these characters as villains for the sake of moving forward. In Gary Oldman's Dreyfus we still feel a great resentment towards his own actions because of what measures he would take to preserve his own kind, and at the same time within Koba we have actions that make sense from perspective. They aren't "bad" by nature, but that's why they've ever managed to leave behind a great impact with their own roles.

Yet despite having so much more working efforts than Rise of the Planet of the Apes, somehow it also comes out as more expository. I appreciate how these films don't blindly go about with painting the human race within a single-sided light, but with the obvious political allegory having already been established - one aspect in which I find myself getting more critical of Dawn comes by, it has already painted within a broader and darker canvas because it has found itself free to roam after an origin story had already been set up, but it only comes to repeat a message already having been told, thus in part it finds itself losing a sense of its own identity. Sure, there's far more that I appreciate in the narrative that Matt Reeves has created as opposed to what Rupert Wyatt had presented only as a means of getting something done and over with, but a greater feeling of separation even from its own predecessors would also be much appreciated out of these films.

Functioning as a sequel, what Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is servicing comes more than just as one film continuing what its predecessor has already established wonderfully. Even if it may seem more expository, there's still no denying that its freedom has also created what can easily be seen as a more confident and engaging affair altogether. These go beyond exciting action sequences and outstanding visual effects work, because Dawn of the Planet of the Apes also works beautifully in how it approaches its own characters with how they have come to be. In an age where one can dismiss blockbusters as being tiresome and repetitive, what Matt Reeves has presented with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is more than just exciting storytelling, it is fantastic blockbuster filmmaking all around.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Apes together strong
23 July 2017
Back in 2011, Rise of the Planet of the Apes introduced us to Caesar, the genetically enhanced & super-intelligent chimp who would go on to lead an ape uprising. It was a fresh & smartly handled reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise that not only began the saga on a promising note but was also one of the finest films of its year.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes followed three years later, and was such an ambitious & tactically crafted sequel that it left everyone astonished with its darker premise & post-apocalyptic setting. The story further developed Caesar's arc and all was about him rising to the challenge of being a great leader in the gravest of circumstances.

And now we have War for the Planet of the Apes that made its way into cinemas as the final piece of the saga that finds Caesar wrestling with his darker instincts right in the middle of a deadly conflict he never wanted to be a part of. Everything that happened in previous two films has led to this, but it's also where Caesar becomes a legend of mythic proportions.

The story of War for the Planet of the Apes finds Caesar & his tribe forced into an all-out war with an army of humans, led by a ruthless Colonel. As the apes suffer unimaginable losses, Caesar goes on a quest to avenge his kind along with his most trusted companions which eventually leads to an epic battle that will determine the fate of the two species & the future of the planet.

Co-written & directed by Matt Reeves, the film opens with a brief but thrilling battle between apes & humans that takes an instant hold of the viewers' attention and maintains a firm grip on it till the end. The story is bleak & poignant but also riveting & intimate, for the stakes are higher this time & Caesar is tested like never before. However, it still feels a bit stretched in the middle, engaging but slower than it needs to be.

The script packs a gripping premise that not only continues Caesar's journey but also adds more depth & dimensions to his arc, for we find Caesar not only driven by a personal vendetta but also haunted by nightmares of what he might become in his quest for revenge. Retribution, survival, sacrifice, slavery, leadership & redemption are few of the themes that the film explores, and does so in a patient yet effective manner.

The post-apocalyptic setting exhibits a similarity to Dawn, and the expertly chosen locations only add to its harsh surrounding. The static manoeuvring of camera, apt use of slow-mo technique & fine application of cold colour palette not only enhances the drama but also intensifies its wintry ambiance. VFX is top-notch as expected from Weta Digital, pacing is an issue in the middle, while its stimulating score is always in sync from start to finish.

Coming to the performances, Andy Serkis, in his third outing as Caesar, delivers a truly knockout performance that's as impeccable as it is soulful, plus his screen presence is both dominating & infectious. Karin Konoval & Terry Notary play Maurice & Rocket respectively and make fine use of their additional screen time. As for the humans, only Woody Harrelson leaves his mark in the role of the Colonel while Amiah Miller serves as a mute observer of the carnage.

On an overall scale, War for the Planet of the Apes is an impressive entry in the rebooted Planet of the Apes series, and along with the previous two films makes up for one of contemporary cinema's finest trilogies. A strong, epic & emphatic end to a saga that began six years ago, it's a moving, meditative & morally complex blockbuster that lives up to its enormous hype, and also cements its status, and that of its trilogy, as one of the most powerful sagas to unfold on the silver screen.
3 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Evolution becomes Revolution
23 July 2017
Rise of the Planet of the Apes starts and stops with the emotional-motion capture acting ability of Andy Serkis. He's a master of his trade, a pleasure to watch and what he does with the Caesar character is Oscar worthy, if it was legal to nominate him. He's the heart and soul of the film, and without him, the movie wouldn't be the same.

I'm amazed how the apes look. It's a wonderful combination of special effects and motion capture. I love the growth in Caesar's personality, the boss daddy pimpness of Maurice and the bad assness of Koba. The action scenes with the apes are as thrilling as they come.

For some strange reason, James Franco doesn't appear stoned or ready to cut off his arm. This is the soberest I've seen him. He's very likable, and his story arc makes sense. To me, he's one of the few humans with any depth. His girlfriend is just there. The bad people act like bad guys. John Lithgow is cool as Franco's Alzheimer's suffering father, but his development is predictable.

I like how this movie doesn't wear out its welcome. A lot of times, origin stories tend to be overlong. I believe the runtime is just right, and does just enough, to set up the next film.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"If you're nothing without the suit then you shouldn't have it"
11 July 2017
After an auspicious cameo in last year's Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man now has his own standalone feature in the MCU and and I'm happy to report that it more than lives up to the promise of his previous appearance. Spider-Man: Homecoming is the third on- screen iteration of the illustrious web-slinger, as directors Sam Raimi and Marc Webb previously had separate swings at the characters, but in many ways, this seems to be the first version that truly understands what makes the character unique and indispensible in the superhero realm. If Raimi's trilogy exhibited an earnest campiness ripped straight from the comic book pages and Webb's pair of films was brooding retort to the Dark Knight series, then this film casts a lively signature of its own that's defined by soulful storytelling and perfectly pitched humor.

Tom Holland reprises his role as the young Peter Parker, who is desperate to become a full-time Avenger after the thrilling battle of Civil War but is told to lay low and not get into anything too perilous by his burgeoning father figure Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) Eager to help his community, he ignores the advice and crosses paths with arms dealer Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), who harvests the alien technology brought to Earth during The Avengers to create advanced weapons for criminals all around the city. Parker also must balance this new conflict with the everyday dilemmas of teenage life, including a best friend (Jacob Batalon) who accidentally learns of his secret identity and a new love interest (Laura Harrier) who challenges him on the academic decathlon team.

The film's subtitle is a nod to the fact that Spider-Man has "come home" to Marvel Studios after 15 years of Sony hoarding the character rights but it's actually more telling that it refers to the big homecoming dance at Parker's high school, as the movie tends to play out more like a coming-of-age teen comedy than traditional superhero epic. As opposed to the high school scenes of previous Spider- Man movies that mainly consisted of "kids" in their late twenties sitting around in room made to look like a lunchtime cafeteria, Midtown High School actually feels like a believable setting complete with awkward gym classes and dreadful detention sessions (there's even brief chess club shoutout, for good measure). Homecoming understands that the stakes of the story are established by Parker's interpersonal conflicts and are not just defined by the big showdown with Spider-Man's villain of the week.

This emotionally grounded mentality extends not just to Parker but also to Toomes as well, whose evil plan isn't to blow up the planet or take over the galaxy but rather to just stay under the radar peddling guns on the black market so that he can support his family. Keaton's portrayal of the Vulture (the Birdman jokes write themselves) is one that's steeped in desperation and circumstance rather than sinister clichés that have infected many a Marvel villain in the past, which makes the character one of the more compelling examples in the category. When Spider-Man and Vulture do arrive at their final confrontation, the shared history between the two comes to the forefront and creates a poignancy that makes their airborne showdown that much more thrilling.

It may sound like serious business but believe me when I say that there are plenty of laughs along the way with loads of quick visual gags, ping-pong dialogue and some brilliantly conceived bits that reference other segments of this Universe (there's a running joke featuring another MCUer that's delightfully unexpected). Like The Lego Batman Movie, this is a film written by people who know how to get plenty of comedic mileage from riffing on aspects of their respective characters' legacies but they do so respectfully, taking care to avoid mean- spirited jabs in the process. People are rightly skeptical of reboots, especially with franchises that have had as much recent activity as this one, but Spider-Man: Homecoming proves that a fresh vision on an existing property can sometimes have truly amazing results.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
"You were my friend and you betrayed me!"
7 July 2017
15 Expected it to be an utter crap & it truly lived up to that prediction. After opening with a pretty good prologue, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a downhill trip from there & follows Peter Parker enjoying his life fighting crime as Spider-Man but having hallucinations of Gwen Stacy's deceased dad whenever he is with her. But soon he has other things to deal with as new villains in town arrive starting with a Spider-Man obsessed fan who after a mishap mutates into Electro. Next comes Harry Osborn who later transforms into Green Goblin & last we have Rhino but the less I talk about this ass-wimp, the better it is.

Director Marc Webb tries to do so many things at once in this sequel that the movie as a whole becomes entangled in its own webbing & not a single one of its sub-plots come out as well as one would've liked. The screenplay is dull, camera-work is more focused on 3D experience than contributing to the story, editing leaves so many unnecessary scenes in tact, VFX is where most of its quarter-billion budget seems to have been expended, the entire plot has no sense of direction, characterization is poor & even Hans Zimmer's music fails to deliver this time.

The very few things likable about it is the new Spidey costume which now closely resembles the comic books look, the Gwen/Peter chemistry that's on or off throughout the film, Peter/Harry friendship that should've been further explored & the scenes involving Aunt May which feel most authentic on an emotional scale. The recurring cast has done the same job they did in the last film, adding nothing new to talk about in this one. Jamie Foxx hams his way through as Electro, Dane DeHaan has better moments as Harry than Green Goblin & Paul Giamatti's Rhino is far worse than imaginable.

And don't be blinded by the false advertisement going on here as Electro plays the main villain, Green Goblin is present only during the final moments but not for too long & Rhino almost doesn't even exist in this film. On an overall scale, the 2nd chapter of this needlessly rebooted franchise delivers another lackluster cinematic experience & proves that the team has learned nothing from the mistakes it made in the last movie. Adding more extravagant elements into its production only to later end up choking on it, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is far less amazing than what it's selling itself as. Do yourself a favour & waste your money on something else
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The untold story thats already been told
5 July 2017
As a big fan of Sam Raimi's films with everyone's favorite wall crawler and web slinger (yes, even the third one), I was more than skeptical when it came to this reboot. Hence it was no surprise I didn't like this film on a first watch and things didn't change with this rewatch either.

Why do the origin story again, just tweaked a bit, when it was already perfectly done by Raimi? Because Sony was afraid to lose the rights to Marvel, if they didn't come up with something. And because it is a reboot so they need to restart the franchise and make some easy money while at it. What they came up with though is half-baked and disappointing on almost every level. I mean, just having to listen to Uncle Ben rephrase the classic line "with great power comes great responsibility" in order to avoid sounding too familiar to the original goes to show how pointless all of this is.

This "updated" version for "modern audiences" completely changes Peter Parker into someone I don't find myself hurrying to root for. Compared to (and I know it's not really fair to compare it to the original but they basically asked for it) Tobey Maguire's character, this Peter Parker seems so shallow. In the original Peter Parker was a meek, even poor four-eyed crammer with no parents. In this, he wears contact lenses and has a skateboard. Just by giving Maguire's Parker this constant struggle with money you bring the audiences to side with him, not to mention the fact that he's an orphan. Here, it's almost taken for granted that we should root for him because he's an orphan, whereas I don't think that's enough. He seems like a spoiled brat who is too "cool" for his own sake. Andrew Garfield is fine for the most part but I don't find him particularly great in the role.

Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard does a good job with what he's given; he's not given that much though. From the first time you see him he already begins laying out what he's all about: his obsession with finding a medical solution for his missing arm. Not that I'm expecting deep character development or solid motives when it comes to the villain but it sure helps to flesh him out a bit.

I'm not going to get into the whole Gwen Stacy romance and the sub-plot with her father but they seem as poorly handled as the rest of the characters/relationships. It's not a terrible film by any means, I actually enjoyed it somewhat. I liked how Spider-Man saved the kid on the bridge, the fight in the school and in the sewers, the fact that they made Spider-Man a very agile superhero and that they went for a dramatic, almost corny tone by the end. All of that I liked. But. It felt like a rushed and unnecessary rehash of already great content.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
7/10
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
3 July 2017
After the brilliance that was Spider- Man 2, this movie was a big step down in terms of quality. The main problem being that there is just too much going in in the script, that it all comes out as rushed, half baked, and often cheesy and contrived.

All the main cast are back again. Tobey Maguire does get to deliver some good scenes, like his anger over the Sandman/Ben connection, and his conflict with Harry Osborn. But he also delivers some cringe worthy stuff, notably the dancing stuff.

Kirsten Dunst is absolutely dire as MJ. She irritates, moans, criticizes, and cries her way through the movie. She is truly unlikable in this movie. She commits so many offenses in this movie. From her hypocritical behavior over the Spidey/Gwen publicity kiss, to giving into Harry's empty threat to break Peter's heart, to her constant whining about her fading career.

James Franco is probably the best actor of the movie. Although his character falls short in some areas. For starters he is not a Goblin. He is a guy in a black jumpsuit on a hoverboard. His grand revenge plan is nothing more than a silly break up of Peter and MJ, which made no sense. He spends a lot of the movie as a nice guy with amnesia, too. That said, he does deliver some great stuff. Notably his gloating to Peter about breaking him and MJ up. And that mansion fight was superb. His death scene was also emotionally great.

Then we have Sandman, played by Thomas Haden Church, an actor who is utterly wasted in this movie. Sandman seems like an out of place element. He is a poor thief, who just wants to steal some money to help his sick daughter. But he's got a backstory. Turns out he's the guy who actually shot Uncle Ben. The other guy from Spider-Man 1 was just an accomplice. A horrible and needless contrived connection of Sandman to Peter. Sandman's is a visually pleasing villain (his birth scene is incredible), except in the scenes where he grows to giant proportions, and comes across as a retarded version of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters. Church is a fine actor, but he is just a cog in a CGI machine. He has so little dialogue.

Topher Grace plays the third baddie in the movie's trio of villains. He is Eddie Brock, a cocky and sleazy photographer competing with Peter for a permanent staff job at the Daily Bugle, who eventually becomes the symbiotic villain, Venom. He is even less used than Church. The script leaves him very little room to even become an important element until the climax.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays iconic Spidey girl, Gwen Stacy. She's sweet, charming, pretty....and pointless. She is an object of Eddie Brock's affections, but this is only mentioned in ONE brief scene between them. She is simply a plot device to make MJ needlessly jealous. A darn shame, because Howard was ten times more likable than Dunst's MJ.

The supporting cast like Aunt May and Jonah Jameson unsurprisingly have less screen time, but are still solid in what they are given to work with. Especially Aunt May, when she lectures Peter over the evils of revenge.

The whole symbiote storyline was also excess baggage. Just look at how the symbiote is introduced. It falls from the sky, and randomly decides to hitch a ride on Peter's scooter. Why?

The movie was supposed to be the darkest of the trilogy as it dealt with the whole theme of revenge. But it actually has more cheesy jokes, campiness, and off color jokes than the other two movies.

But a lot of this was down to Sony, as they saddled Sam Raimi with characters that he didn't want to use: The symbiote storyline, Eddie Brock, and Gwen Stacy. I give him points for doing the best he could in a difficult situation.

The movie has it's faults, but the good out weighs the bad whether it be the conclusion to Peter and Harry's arcs or the fight scenes. Spiderman 3 is a worthwhile watch.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
9/10
"There's a hero in all of us"
3 July 2017
Cinema as unabashed heroism. A spirited expansion of Raimi's first installment but contained in feeling. If Spider-Man was a hokey (but beautifully earnest) origin story, Spider-Man 2 is a tightly plotted comic-book masterpiece, utilizing duality as a basis for the film's tender romance versus its unhinged, euphoric action set-pieces. With a brilliant villain in Doc Ock (wonderfully played by Alfred Molina/Rahad Jackson), this remarkable sequel builds conflict out of Peter Parker's personal relationships, allowing seeds from the original film to grow and blossom yet never restricting itself as a "sequel" that can't be viewed on its own.

Sam Raimi is the star of the show here even with the Grade-A cast of Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and the aforementioned Alfred Molina. Every scene has its own particular life and genre to it, whizzing past Horror, Romance, Action, and Drama so that the best aspects are carefully picked and placed in the right moment at the right time. It *feels* like a comic-book - like panels manifesting on the screen - and multiple sequences evoke that same kind of tactility and essence. Whether it's a villain introduction with enough discordant screams and jarring clangs of metal and flesh to give children nightmares or a train fight scene of immaculate power and excitement, Raimi effortlessly crafts it all.

But it isn't excessively dour or "dark" (see: Jared Leto sending used condoms to his costars) in spite of tackling mature issues. It knows the core of the Spider-Man character, his importance and grace, his weaknesses and flaws. The exaggerated, geeky world that Sam Raimi created is full of peril, but the viewer trusts the hero of the story, who after saving a train full of people, to get right back up and fight for his city. It's why "he's just a kid, no older than my son." or "don't worry, we won't tell nobody." melts my heart into a gigantic puddle, for I feel for the bystanders just as much as the hero; a triumphant savior swinging against the sky.

However, I'd say that my heart collapses even more with each viewing because of the romance between Tobey and Kirsten; a classic story forged out of longing for a connection felt ever since the late- night trash trips in the backyard. When Mary Jane asks for a kiss, it's not only hopefully for a recognition of love, but for a recognition of a hero. That upside down kiss in the darkened alleyway as rain fell down their bodies meant more for both of them than you'd think, and when that satisfaction is cut short through Doc Ock (again, personal influences can't stay out of both sides of Peter's life), the audience experiences the same fearlessness, the same passion, the same goddamn HEROISM as Peter as he bursts out of the coffee shop rubble (Raimi's usage of heightened cinema is unstoppable) with his vision clear and his mind opened.

And when it's all over, the infatuation is limitless, with doves taking flight and piercing white and orange hues signaling a yearning hope for a better day. A world where subway passengers protect their hero without hesitation. "Go get em, Tiger." she says as he dives into the crisp summer air, unaware if he's coming back but understanding that fact. Mary Jane's face says it all. As he merges with the sunset, we're thinking the same thing. Spider-Man 2 feels like a literal end to a certain kind of Superhero film, one with the freedom for montages, exaggerated lightning and thunder claps, and above all, a close- up with two lovers suspended in midair against a web.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spider-Man (2002)
8/10
"We are who we choose to be. Now choose!"
3 July 2017
One of the first movies to pave the groundwork for modern superhero flicks, Spider-Man is an incredibly fun & endlessly entertaining action-adventure that brings its web-slinging hero to life on the silver screen in a truly fascinating manner after spending nearly a quarter of a century in development hell and, with its record- breaking box office performance, acts as a precursor to an era when superheroes would dominate the summer box-office.

Based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, the story of Spider-Man follows Peter Parker; a high-school kid who after being bitten by a radioactive spider at a genetic laboratory begins to develop spider-like abilities and puts his new powers to good use by turning to crimefighting. Meanwhile, Norman Osborn experiments a power-enhancing drug on himself as a desperate attempt to preserve a military contract critical for his company's survival.

Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man has all the ingredients of a summer blockbuster plus it benefits a lot from Raimi's dynamic filmmaking style that doesn't dwell on a single moment for far too long, keeps the story fresh, light-hearted & action-packed for the most part, plus never loses its initially-gained momentum. David Koepp's screenplay is no slouch either for it packs in a compelling plot & few interesting characters and the whole story is cheesy but well humoured.

The technical aspects are all brilliantly executed. Camera-work is excellent for the most part for the chosen angles, swift movements, slow-mo shots & warm colour palette are correctly employed. Editing provides a frenetic pace to its narrative, each moment has a role to play, and its 121 minutes of runtime simply flies by. Visual effects team makes use of both CGI & practical stuntwork and it's amazing just how well it has aged when compared to other effects-laden movies released back then.

Coming to the performances, Spider-Man packs in a very interesting cast in Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, Willem Dafoe, J.K. Simmons & others, and many of them are pretty convincing in their given roles. Maguire does a terrific job under Raimi's supervision, Dafoe plays Norman Osborn with finesse but that Green Goblin suit is extremely off-putting, Simmons is a near-perfect rendition of J. Jonah Jameson from the comics while both Dunst & Franco do a fine job as Mary Jane Watson & Harry Osborn, respectively.

Also worthy of admiration is Danny Elfman's outstanding score that captures just the right tone & feel of your friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man's universe and brims with tracks that seamlessly integrate into the story. On an overall scale, Spider-Man may not seem as impressive today as it did back when it made its debut on the silver screen but it still remains one of the best offerings of its category and delivers a roller- coasted ride that's enjoyable, entertaining & highly satisfying. Spider-Man is a summer popcorn extravaganza right on the money.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonder Woman (2017)
8/10
"Only love can truly save the world"
9 June 2017
Wonder Woman is the latest installment in Warner Bros. DC Extended Universe, the first female led superhero film in over a decade (we can try to forget that Catwoman and Elektra happened....but they did) and also the first female director to direct a superhero film with a female protagonist (the second in comic book films behind Lexi Alexander for 2008's Punisher: War Zone). From these points, plus the fact that the films within the DCEU haven't received the critical claim that I'm sure the studio hoped to gain and what the fans hoped to achieve, there seemed to be a question of how much pressure is riding on Wonder Woman to be appease both the fans and the critics of the DCEU, let alone the number of people that have been waiting over seventy-five years for her to have her big screen outing. Wonder Woman is set before the other installments of the DCEU, taking place during World War I. One day just off the shores of Themyscira, an Allied intelligence officer, Steve Trevor, crashes his plane and warns the Amazons of the war to end all wars that is taking place outside of their bubble. Shocked to hear of the atrocities and casualties of the war, Diana decides to go with Trevor to the front of the war and fight for the helpless and discover her true destiny.

I had relatively high expectations leading up to the release of this film due to how well I thought the trailers were done and I must say that the film even managed to surpass them. The film starts off strong introducing the audience to the island of Themyscira and the Amazon warriors that live on it, telling us the history behind their existence which on paper sounds completely ridiculous and yet with Patty Jenkins at the helm, that origin is fully embraced and isn't afraid to make a joke at its own expense to generate a laugh or two. Jenkins has made it clear that she was influenced by Richard Donner's Superman and when you're watching the film you can clearly see shades of that influence, from showing us the heroes homeland in the first act, to the superhero figure coming out as a beacon of hope in a grey world and the character gets to shine brightly within the World War I setting. Following Diana's journey to mankind's world and seeing her naivety about seeking out immediately to help those in need within a black and white viewpoint about right and wrong, whilst learning of the evil that men are capable of, actually feels refreshing in the landscape of comic book films we've had as of late. The films key strength and glue that keeps the audience invested is the relationship between Diana and Steve Trevor. Both of them fold into the 'fish out of water' mould that perfectly compliment each other as they are both bemused by the others origins as one has never seen a man before and the other has never met a....well, a God. Their journey throughout the film feels more authentic than forced and that's due to the terrific chemistry that they have together on screen. Steve is, in his words an 'above average' man that is more than capable of handling himself within the settings of the war but can't help but deliver some sharp sense of humour as he stares in awe when Diana begins to unleash her powers and I thought Chris Pine gave a really good performance in the role. Gal Gadot on the other hand.....I thought she was excellent as Diana. Much has questioned about her ability as an actress capable of playing the role since she was cast back in 2013, rather unfairly in my opinion. Here she manages to find the balance of bringing innocence, sincerity and badassery to the role and with the action sequences she has and the material that she has to work with, this is comfortably her best performance to date. From the supporting cast I thought Robin Wright's performance as General Antiope stood out the most for me, though I did also like Connie Nielsen, David Thewlis and Saïd Taghmaoui. There's a few scenes that stood out to me, with the action sequence that will be referred to as No Man's Land I thought was perfectly done, from the buildup of the scene to the pacing of the sequence and the editing and then there's the small moments such as Steve teaching Diana how to dance or sway really well.

Even within the positively, there's a few issues I have with the film that many comic book films fall victim to. The key one being the use of special effects. While it relies heavily on it in the final acts battle scene, it feels more justified than say how the CGI is handled on a battle scene on Themyscira where it is terribly noticeable to the point of distracting, to the rather poor use of green screen as two characters are having a conversation with one another. The other issue is that the films main villains, as in General Ludendorff and mad scientist Doctor Poison are just too flat and one-dimensional as we're giving nothing to develop even hatred towards them and one certain aspect of Lundendorff is never really addressed thinking back on the film that's actually bugging me. The performances from Danny Huston and Elena Anaya were rather 'too theatrical' at one point, involving one scene and a group of Germans.

Wonder Woman is a wonderfully inspiring and compassionate superhero film that is a breath of fresh air in the genre thanks to Patty Jenkins at the helm. The action sequences are more often than not fantastic to watch and the performances from Gadot and Pine keep you invested. Her time is now indeed.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Treasure
9 June 2017
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is a prime example on how to resuscitate a franchise. I consider myself a Pirates fan, and I am happy to say this film is a worthy addition to the franchise. As soon as the movie started, all the shameful exposition made me think this would suck, but as the new characters are introduced, and the old ones etch their way in, the movie improves greatly. Dead Men Tell No Tales spends the necessary time in character development, and Kaya Scodelario makes the otherwise dull plot devices tolerable. She is the single best addition to the franchise and should be what the next movie should focus on to make it the best it can be. Her screen presence is completely magnetic and she steals every scene she is in.

The other new elements, like Captain CGI and Henry Turner, are solid, but nothing extraordinary. I really wish they had used more practical effects instead of a motion capture transparent army, but it wasn't too bad.

The movie also has some GREAT set pieces, and I swear the guillotine sequence is one of the funniest I've seen in some time. Depp and his antics are perfect for set pieces so that really helped the movie, and the script was sharper than I thought it would be. That last death scene was also very good, and though the reveal seemed a little gratuitous, it didn't negatively affect the end product that much.

The score is mostly evocative of the previous movies, as it is expected, but it embraces that and does it well, unlike some other Disney movies. Geoff Zanelli also introduces some new themes that are good, but his spotting for the old Hans Zimmer themes is remarkable. The fleeting french horn motif he uses for the small Black Pearl was magnificent, expressive orchestration. I really hope he stays on for the next film.

Overall, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales is a good movie that is fun to watch, and that is all that really matters. Taking into account the non-existent source material (a theme park ride), Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg do a pretty good job at directing it, and Jeff Nathanson and Terry Rossio pulled a pretty passable script out of their asses, even though there are some pretty blatant continuity errors (compass origin story) that hopefully most fans will overlook. Combined with very sharp cinematography by Paul Cameron (Deja Vu, Collateral), and a good score by Geoff Zanelli, Pirates 5 ends up being a pretty good movie, setting the stage for a much better continuation.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
We're devils and black sheep, we're really bad eggs.
8 June 2017
A waste of a movie that solely exists to make money, On Stranger Tides may not be as bad as its reputation would suggest, but nonetheless does a poor job at validating its existence.

Johnny Depp is as good as ever as Captain Jack, and returning actors Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa and Kevin McNally as Gibbs are fun to see alongside Jack yet again. Some of the action sequences are decent, but lack the impressive scale or inventiveness of its predecessors.

For the most part its well paced, wisely clocking in at a shorter runtime than the previous films. The costume design is still impressive and the script still manages to generate a few laughs.

Unfortunately, the story is nowhere near as interesting as the original films. The middle act of the movie tends to drag at times. Though there were some implausible action scenes in the original trilogy, this one goes a bit far, turning Jack into a literal superhero. The stakes don't feel as high either, as Rob Marshall's direction is quite poor.

Though I praised the returning characters, the new ones just aren't up to the mark. Penelope Cruz plays Jack's love interest, and she is honestly a very boring and rather annoying character. Ian McShane's Blackbeard comes as a huge disappointment, as he receives quite a build up but ends up being anything but intimidating. There is a forced and unnecessary romance between a priest and a mermaid that just wastes time.

Following a very predictable path and never rising above being a mediocre film, On Stranger Tides isn't terrible but does not justify its existence. Marshall has no real style, and the grandeur of Gore Verbinski's original trilogy is sorely lacking, along with many of the lovable characters from the originals. In short, it's entirely watchable but extremely forgettable.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
One day
29 May 2017
The third and final chapter of the initial trilogy, At World's End begins not long after the cliffhanger ending of Dead Man's Chest. Lord Cutler Beckett now has command of both Davy Jones and The Flying Dutchman, and is using them as his weapons to exterminate piracy from the high seas once and for all. Meanwhile, Will, Elizabeth, the resurrected Barbossa and the rest of the Black Pearl crew are in search of a way into Davy Jones' Locker, where Jack Sparrow currently is after being swallowed whole by The Kraken. Their journey has them cross paths with the vengeful Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) before they can pull Jack out of purgatory. But once Jack is back, he finds that it's not for the purposes he would've hoped. Will just wants Jack's ship so that he can use it to rescue his father from the clutches of Davy Jones, Elizabeth is looking to own up for the double-handed way she betrayed Jack, and Barbossa is only interested in returning Jack to the land of the living because it means that the legendary Brethren Court of Pirates can convene to formulate a plan of action; both Jack and Barbossa are Pirate Lords. However, it seems neither side can avoid the war that is brewing on the horizon as all the alliances between these characters grow shakier by the minute.

Okay, so that's the most basic plot description of this movie I can write. If I were to go into any more detail, then we'd be here all day. The plot of this film is A LOT more complex than you'd expect in a pirate action-adventure movie, but that's what I love about it. Yes, you read right: love. So, let's get into this story, shall we?

As I pointed out with Dead Man's Chest, the more intricate plotting winds up making the movie all the more interesting. There is so much going on here, that this movie doesn't merely ask for your attention, it DEMANDS it. And when talking about a big-budget, effects- driven blockbuster, that is something I both admire and respect a great deal. To answer the question that's probably on everyone's mind right now: no, I didn't find it confusing at all. It's an extremely easy movie to follow, really, and I appreciate how it doesn't feel the need to spoonfeed the audience every single, miniature detail. Plus, it has so much plot going on, that for a nearly 3-hour movie, At World's End rarely (if ever) feels like it's wasting time. Not only that, but the story moves along at a very nice pace and the movie never feels overlong.

Though, I admit, your overall investment in this movie is determinate on how much you're invested in the characters and everything they're doing. Well, suffice it to say I love these characters, and find myself involved in every aspect of this movie every time I watch it. I care about Will and Elizabeth's troubled romance, I care about Will's burgeoning desire to free his father from Davy Jones, I care about the Pirate Council desperately fighting to maintain their way of life, and ultimately, I care about the fates of all the characters. Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio's script gives nearly everyone something to do in the story, so nobody ever feels wasted, but more importantly, the script creates very interesting dynamics between all of them.

Those dynamics are another part of what makes this movie so cool. Basically, everyone here is behaving exactly like what they are: pirates. And that's something that feels so natural, given the high stakes of the story. Survival is the predominant idea on every character's mind, and it's an idea that would make anyone in situations like these do what they have to in order to achieve it. Even if it involves unflattering betrayals (again, they're pirates; betrayal is as easy as breathing for them). This is most evident with Jack and Will, whose evolution in this movie I also love. So, call me crazy all you want, but I love this script. I also think it sports some great dialogue, as well as an effective opening scene.

Getting back to the high stakes for a moment, this brings me to another point: just how BIG and EPIC this movie is. With a budget of $300 million, there's seldom a moment where you can't see the money on the screen. And that big, epic feeling is something I get wrapped up in all the time. At World's End has some fantastic set pieces and action sequences, but they're not there just for the hell of it; they're there because they're born organically out of the story. That, and they're a load of fun. I mean, just look at the sheer energy of that fantastic maelstrom climax. Not just in terms of action, but story as well, this movie is just huge, and I'm sure no other movie in the franchise will ever top this in that regard. Also, Hans Zimmer's score for this film is equally epic and amazing.

Overall, I find Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to be the most misunderstood and under-appreciated blockbuster of the last couple of years. People always complain how these Hollywood blockbusters are ignoring the stories less and less, and yet when a movie like this comes along that actually creates an interesting one, they just write it off anyway.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by."
29 May 2017
The follow-up chapter to Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl might appear inferior in content & a step-down in quality of narration but it nonetheless succeeds as a worthy sequel that presents significant upgrades in many aspects, takes the spectacle of the first film to a higher level and despite a few hiccups remains a highly entertaining & amusing ride for the most part.

The second installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean series, Dead Man's Chest continues the journey of the savvy pirate Captain Jack Sparrow as he's reminded of the debt he owes to Davy Jones, Captain of the Flying Dutchman, and then races against time to steal Jones' heart in order to strike a bargain with him. But he isn't the only one as other friends & foes seek the heart for their own agendas as well.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest opens on a really interesting note, takes more time than before to set up its premise because of which a few sequences feel static but once the board is set, the movie truly delivers the epic spectacle it promised. The screenplay follows multiple story lines often interacting with each other at times but it does come together in the end to form a coherent structure.

The technical aspects present a massive upgrade, thanks to the higher budget. Set pieces are even more impressive than before and both the Black Pearl & the Flying Dutchman are magnificently designed & detailed. Cinematography exhibits a dynamic range in capturing all the action & drama, the exotic locations are beautifully photographed and it also makes extensive use of the colour palette to provide its tale a more vivid touch.

Editing fails to give the narrative a tightly-knitted structure like it did in the earlier chapter for there are a few sequences that could've been further trimmed, even the pace is uneven at places and its 150 minutes of runtime is felt on few occasions. Visual effects is a major step-up that ups the ante by a significant margin and what it did with CGI back then was an achievement in itself, most impressive part of it being the sea monster Kraken as well as the convincing portrait of Davy Jones.

Finally, the music department exhibits a major forward leap as well. While the previous film was scored by one of Hans Zimmer's prodigies, it's the master himself who takes the front seat for this sequel and delivers a soundtrack that certainly goes down as one of his finest compositions. Orchestrated with bigger instruments, Zimmer's score pulsates with an epic feel that encapsulates the whole picture and goes a long way in enhancing the experience.

Coming to the performances, Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom & Keira Knightley reprise their respective roles of Captain Jack Sparrow, Will Turner & Elizabeth Swann and further build upon their inputs of the first film. Depp once again overshadows everyone with yet another swashbuckling turn as the savvy pirate but his performance isn't as terrific as it was in the previous movie. Also making an instant impression of his own is Bill Nighy in the role of Davy Jones, who happens to be a strange mix of aquatic flora & fauna.

On an overall scale, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest might be slightly inferior to The Curse of the Black Pearl but it's just as enjoyable, entertaining & amusing, if not more. The plot tends to be more inclined towards the fantasy element but it takes the humour with it and the sense of adventure is kept alive throughout its runtime. It's just that few scenes exist only for viewers' amusement & contribute nothing to the story. More epic in both scope & ambition, Dead Man's Chest is definitely a fun experience that gets most things right, if not all. Delightfully recommended
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A pirates life for me
29 May 2017
A fascinating blend of action, adventure, comedy, horror & fantasy, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is a brilliantly scripted, skilfully directed & cleverly narrated cinema that paints an interesting portrait of pirates mythology on the film canvas like never before and is also notable for bringing to life one of the most iconic characters of 21st century cinema.

The story of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl follows the quest of the savvy pirate Captain Jack Sparrow who teams up with a talented blacksmith, Will Turner, to rescue the latter's love, Elizabeth Swann, who's been taken hostage on the notorious pirate ship, Black Pearl, which is commanded by the feared Captain Barbossa and carries a crew of cursed men who were once Jack's allies.

Directed by Gore Verbinski, Pirates of the Caribbean brims with an energetic & creative vibe which keeps the story refreshing throughout its runtime, doesn't take much time to get its main plot moving, and with its firm grip on refined storytelling ends up infusing a new life into the pirates genre. The screenplay handles its different genres with remarkable ease and also exhibits a fine balance between its various elements.

The production design team does a stellar job with its period sets & meticulously designed ships. Cinematography makes fab use of its camera to capture each sequence in fine detail, use of colour palette is quite splendid and the expertly staged camera angles & movements make its story all the more captivating. Even the Costumes are pretty much in tune with the depicted timeline, and the work in make-up department is no slouch either.

Editing is undoubtedly one of its strongest highlights for it never allows the viewers to settle down, keeps the adventurous tone alive & kicking all the way from start to finish, and paces its 143 minutes of story amazingly well. Visual effects is state-of-the-art stuff which blends into the narrative quite seamlessly. The background score is composed by Klaus Badelt and is an absolute delight that enhances the whole experience by a great deal with its pulsating tracks.

Coming to the performances, Pirates of the Caribbean features an awesome cast in Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom & Keira Knightley and they all manage to leave their mark, one way or another. Depp makes Jack Sparrow completely his own for it's his added inputs only which gives his character a unique look & edge over the others, and there isn't one scene where he isn't the show-stealer. Rush also impresses a lot with his crazy take on Captain Barbossa, while Bloom & Knightley deliver good performances in their given roles.

On an overall scale, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl is a powerhouse of action, spectacle & humour that's loaded with all the ingredients one requires to make a great blockbuster, which it is in every sense of the word. A work of ingenious craftsmanship that packs in a whole lot of fun, absolutely nails its comic timing, wonderfully balance all its aspects, delivers an entertainment worth your time & money, and is a highly enjoyable, unforgettable & swashbuckling ride that presents Johnny Depp at the pinnacle of his talents while permanently engraving Captain Jack Sparrow into the annals of cinema & pop culture.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A return to form for the Alien franchise
20 May 2017
This is what Alien fans wanted Prometheus to be and I mean that in a great way. Alien: Covenant puts the franchise on track for some great future films, Scott's vision is felt in every scene, and it is wonderful, albeit horrific, for the poor unfortunate souls who exist within it.

This is truly an Alien film that appropriately tethers itself to what ground work was laid in Prometheus. It's got Ridley Scott visual style all over it, as it should, and its score, by Jed Kurzel, is beautiful and haunting in what feelings it elicits. From the moment I saw the classic Alien title stylings accompanied by that aforementioned score, I had a feeling this would be a good one.

As the story unfolds and what is truly going on is discovered or, more accurately, revealed to the ill-fated crew of the Covenant, it began to evoke Frankenstein (Shelley herself actually gets name dropped), but even more so, The Island of Dr. Moreau. As things become clearer, things become only all the more difficult for the colonization crew. The story here is incredibly well put together and is twistedly clear on just what is going on come the third act.

The crew itself is well cast with there not being a single weak link in the bunch. A quick cameo from James Franco was nice and Danny McBride takes a wonderful dramatic turn as an actor. He does get to be the source of a couple of well placed, but not out of place jokes that provide some wonderful bits of humor, but his acting definitely impressed me especially when things get truly tense toward the end. Billy Crudup and Demian Bichir, Watchmen and The Hateful Eight alum respectively, are excellent in their supplementary roles. The unsurprising star here and spiritual successor to Ellen Ripley is Katherine Waterston. I began to plot out her character's path throughout the film simply given how the crew itself worked, however, the great thing about this film in terms of being a horror/thriller was that it was difficult to see who was next a lot of the time and it wasn't afraid to kill off multiple characters at one time. As the audience, I had a pretty good idea of who would remain come the end, but getting there wasn't as easily foreseeable. Michael Fassbender as the androids David and Walter was fun to watch and his journey in the film is spectacular

This film is a great example as one with layers that one could choose to examine for deeper meaning or overlook in favor of taking its surface as a great popcorn horror/thriller flick. Given the interactions that Fassbender's character has, multiple meanings for the title beyond that of the ship itself emerge. I'm being purposefully vague as not to spoil anything, but the underlying philosophies and a small study of a covenant between creator and creation does exist. I myself can only take it so far as I've only seen the film once, but I wouldn't be surprised to find even more on a future viewing.

And I will certainly revisit this one. Alien: Covenant delivered for me in a big way. It had action, suspense, was gross as hell, and while there wasn't a great deal of "horror," the story it told was wonderfully self-contained such that a newcomer to the franchise could watch it alongside a veteran and understand what was going on. That being said, you'll appreciate a great deal more if you're a fan. This is a big bridge for the franchise as, one can gather from the trailers alone, the true Xenomorph comes to form in this film. I'm not sure what route the franchise takes next, but I am very optimistic.

Also, I couldn't help, but come up with an, admittedly lengthy, alternate title while watching: Alien: An Origin of Species. It could have easily been something akin to this and been very much appropriate.
112 out of 211 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alien (1979)
10/10
In space no one can hear you scream
20 May 2017
One of the most original, suspenseful & terrifying films you're ever going to come across, Ridley Scott's breakthrough feature is a masterful blend of imagination, art direction, set design, special effects, unsettling score, perfect cast, terrific performances & quality narration, and is an extraordinary achievement in the genre of both horror & science-fiction which today is universally hailed as one of the greatest motion pictures of all time.

Alien follows a seven members crew en-route to Earth on board a huge commercial ship when their journey is interrupted by what appears to be a distress signal from a desolate planet. The crew lands to investigate but discovers a deadly life form which breeds within a human host. And so begins the horror... the horror of a highly aggressive extra-terrestrial creature which begins to stalk & kill them one by one.

Ingeniously directed by Ridley Scott, it's his brilliant use of atmospheric visuals & breathtaking details plus strong emphasis on realism over movie heroics that provides Alien an ageless appeal. Cleverly penned down by Dan O'Bannon, his vision of the monster and the futuristic world he sets the plot in is nothing short of breathtaking. Also, H.R. Giger's design of the monster is an exceptional feat in itself, for it is truly a unique & original fusion of insect, man & machine.

Cinematography & editing is carried out amazingly well and integrates effortlessly with other aspects of this film. The cast works together as a team with great maturity and it was pleasing to see each & every character getting equal importance as it provided viewers a bunch of very believable & convincing individuals. And in a cast that comprises of Tom Skerritt, Veronica Cartwright, Sigourney Weaver, Ian Holm & John Hurt, it is Weaver who ends up leaving the most lasting impression on the canvas.

But the most remarkable thing about Alien is its persistent attention on suspense over mindless gore & graphic kills and of course, its smart pacing as well that separates it from typical slasher films. Alien actually takes its time & waits until the viewers are fully immersed into its world and is at its scariest when nothing is happening as Scott allows plenty of space for our imaginations to run wild and, with little help from Jerry Goldsmith's tense score, turns almost every frame into a potential nightmare scenario.

On an overall scale, by bringing together the silence of 2001: A Space Odyssey to create suspense and the horror of Jaws by not showing but not ruling out the presence of the creature either, Alien succeeds in creating a very dark, moody & unique atmosphere that constantly provides a feeling of uneasiness throughout its runtime. A genre-defining masterpiece, a genuine fright classic, and an unprecedented fusion of art, science & horror, Alien is a distillation of everything that scares us in the movies. One hundred percent recommended
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Alien 3 (1992)
6/10
The bitch is back
20 May 2017
Alien³ often gets a lot of flak from most fans of the first two chapters of Alien franchise & in a way it deserves that. In its very opening moments, this film makes the huge mistake of discarding all the characters we grew to care about in the last film, leaving behind only Ripley and thus taking the whole premise back to square one. Compared to Ridley Scott's Alien & James Cameron's Aliens, Alien³ is an absolute atrocity. As a standalone feature however, it's not too shabby.

The film opens with the shot of an escape pod carrying the survivors of the last film crash-landing on a prison-run refinery planet, killing all but Ellen Ripley. However, on investigating about what caused the crash, she finds out that an alien organism was on board with them all the time. As the new- born alien matures & begins its killing spree, Ripley tries to warn the inhabitants about the grave situation they are in and eventually discovers a deeply disturbing secret about herself.

Directed by David Fincher, the film marks his feature film debut but was a harrowing experience for him. Troubled production, numerous rewrites, shooting without a finished script, constant interruptions by the studio executives, creative differences & then a complete dismantling of the director's version by the studio by reworking the plot for its theatrical release, it's no wonder why Fincher left the project before production ended and still hates it more than anyone else.

Despite having more budget than the previous two chapters combined, Alien³ is still a massive downgrade in every filmmaking department. There is less suspense, less action, no real sense of direction and it is far more predictable than expected. The sets do provide an inhospitable look to the film but there is nothing impressive about it. Camera-work isn't that bad, editing is much more improved in the Assembly Cut, and the background score isn't that impressive either.

Coming to the performances, apart from the characters of Ellen Ripley & a couple more planet's inhabitants, the rest are present in the film as death fodders only. And although Sigourney Weaver immerses nicely in her career-defining character, others are found hamming like crazy in their given roles. The alien creature itself is given a new design but it's so poorly rendered that it never really looks like a part of the picture but a highly artificial entity superimposed on the screen.

On an overall scale, Alien³ manages to work in bits n pieces and as a standalone feature is slowly gaining a cult following of lately. It is quite entertaining, some sequences are excellently filmed, Weaver manages to impress again but the negatives far outweighs the positives this time as it really makes you wonder where the hell all its budget was spent on considering its poor visual effects, not-so- impressive set pieces & shoddily rendered alien. It's best to approach this film without expecting the level of experience its predecessors delivered or else you're destined to hate it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The apple has fallen far from the tree
20 May 2017
A completely unnecessary sequel that proudly takes over the label of Alien franchise's weakest chapter & also features an odd bit of interspecies erotica, Alien: Resurrection was seen by many as an improvement over Alien³ when it released but that's only because this film didn't have to deal with the reputation of two genre- defining chapters of the franchise & unlike its preceding installment, it only gets worse on multiple viewings.

Set 200 years after the events of Alien³, Alien: Resurrection finds Ellen Ripley resurrected back to life through successful cloning & has the alien queen surgically removed from her body. In the hope of breeding this magnificent life form & study its biology, human hosts are used which are delivered by mercenaries but when the aliens escape their enclosures, Ripley & the rest of the survivors attempt to escape & destroy the spaceship before it reaches Earth.

Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, the film tries to make a tonal shift from a sci-fi horror to a dark comedy but eventually fails at achieving any of its goals as it pretty much sucks as a horror film, doesn't carry enough meat for an action or sci-fi feature and the black comedy elements only come off as far too stupid. Joss Whedon's script is another culprit here even if it contains some interesting ideas & is completely inept when it comes to characterization or action or suspense.

Cinematography adds more tinge to the picture & also includes close-ups of characters when they're busy making stupid faces. Set design is passable & although the alien creatures aren't poorly rendered like it was in the last film, it still doesn't come close to their seamless depiction in the first two films. Visual effects ain't up to the mark either despite its high-budget, music doesn't even feel like a part of the film & the very final creature is so grotesquely designed that it's just too absurd & laughable.

Coming to the performances, Alien: Resurrection manages to even surpass the last chapter when it comes to overacting. Other than Sigourney Weaver & Winona Ryder to some extent, the entire cast looks horrible with their exaggerated expressions, sounds horrible with their overly cheesy dialogues & plays horrible by delivering terrible performances from start to finish. Weaver's performance ain't that great either, however, she does enough to avoid any major complaint on her part.

On an overall scale, Alien: Resurrection is the most light-hearted & cheesiest chapter of the Alien franchise which fails at everything it was trying to do. Adding nothing new to the franchise that we haven't seen before, featuring a set of uninteresting characters most of whom served their purpose as just death fodders & providing no excitement or thrill in any of its action sequences, Alien: Resurrection succeeds in ruining the very franchise that redefined horror, sci-fi & action with its first two chapters and suffered a heavy dent with the third.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Aliens (1986)
10/10
"Get away from her you bitch"
16 May 2017
There are very few sequels out there that have managed to surpass the originals and overcome the expectations of the first chapter's loyal & faithful fans. And James Cameron's Aliens is one film that accomplishes exactly that by taking the universe of Ridley Scott's Alien and expanding upon it in ways most sequels are afraid to, for this second chapter is much bigger & more action-packed than its predecessor, and succeeds not only as a great sci-fi horror but as a redefinition of action filmmaking as well.

The story of Aliens takes place 57 years after the events of the first film & concerns the solo survivor Ripley, whose account of what happened on the planet is dismissed by her executives as the very desolate planet is now inhabited by humans. Things are set in motion when the contact with the planet is lost & Ripley is requested to join a group of space marines to investigate, which she refuses at first but joins in eventually in order to face & overcome her fears once n for all.

Written & directed by James Cameron, it's so heartwarming to see him expanding the universe of the previous film instead of crafting a loose sequel of Alien by repeating the same concept of the first film. Cameron in my opinion is an extremely talented filmmaker not because he knows what great action is all about but because he's always able to back it up with a highly compelling story which is further elevated by jaw-dropping visuals. And this film is a perfect testament to that.

While Alien was a slow building masterpiece of atmospheric tension, Aliens replaces the survival horror of its predecessor with a highly intense, bombastic & violent war between two species. And even though there is less suspense in this film than the last chapter, Cameron makes up for it by turning his feature into an action- thriller filled with intense moments of relentless terror & highly potent combat sequences which ultimately culminates with a bone- chilling climax, that is executed to perfection.

Coming to the performances, while Alien gave equal importance to each of its characters, Aliens places more emphasis on Ripley and is basically her journey from undergoing severe traumatic nightmares caused due to the events of the first film to facing her fears head on in this sequel. And Cameron has penned down her character with extreme care by providing Ripley more depth & emotional dimensions to explore, which Weaver makes full use of to deliver a career-best performance while also becoming the first real female action figure in cinema.

The supporting cast is no slouch either as just like the previous film, there are almost no death fodders in this and the space marines are one bunch of badass characters, each nicely written & given a distinct personality. As for its technical achievements, the art direction & set designs may not have surpassed the artistic levels set in the previous film but it certainly comes close. Visual Effects however is groundbreaking, sound is expertly carried out and James Horner's score perfectly balances the tone of the film throughout the runtime.

On an overall scale, James Cameron's Aliens is a wildly entertaining, immensely satisfying & one spectacular roller-coaster ride of non- stop action that refuses to age even after three decades and continues to rank amongst the most intense & fulfilling pieces of action extravaganzas ever made. Arguably the best film of the franchise, certainly one of the greatest sequels of all time, and undoubtedly one of the finest & most influential examples of its genre(s), Aliens is a perfect follow-up to Alien and, just like its predecessor, is immortal for its contribution to cinema.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prometheus (I) (2012)
7/10
"Sometimes, to create one must first destroy."
11 May 2017
Within the pure sci­-fi genre, Prometheus is arguably one of the best movies in years. Fortunately, it's an utter failure as a prequel to Alien, which allows Ridley Scott to expand the universe created by himself and to explore other aspects of science fiction. Instead of another monster movie, this is a hardcore science film that gets its inspiration from the best of them all: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The opening sequence is incredibly captivating and immediately sets the tone of the film: dark, but not too much, and bold. Besides, it'll have you thinking about it throughout the whole movie and trying to connect it to the main narrative. In the same fashion of the monolith in 2001, that creature will leave you wondering how did that being end up there and what exactly did it (he?) do?.

After that, the main characters are introduced and the first half hour is fast-paced and what every blockbuster should be. Between beautiful imagery and exhilarating theories about the origin of mankind, there is a lot to enjoy in Prometheus. In the mean time, the giant human head seen in one of the posters finally makes its appearance and the lack of attention given to it is rather surprising, especially considering that it is one hell of a mysterious artifact. The mid events are not as interesting as the ones from the beginning, but towards the end it gets a lot better again. Besides, there is never real suspense and the main thing that keeps the viewer glued to the screen is that opening sequence and the eternal question: who put that there?.

Michael Fassbender's android David has to be one of the most underrated movie characters ever. Fassbender's performance is smooth and unique, which slowly builds up David's intellect and many of his actions are opened to personal interpretation. However, some characters are poorly written and, therefore, uninteresting, such as Charlize Theron's Vickers, who plays an unnecessary human (is it?) villain. Idris Elba's Captain Janek is a cool character, but not as cool as they thought he would be. And Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw, aka supposed Ripley, is a pleasant female lead, but not that exciting. Oh, and the guy who plays the other lead character is a horrible actor.

Many elements in the movie seem very surreal, which makes sense given the constant references to surrealist artists, and that only enhances its mystery. Obviously, not everything will be deciphered upon the first viewing and that is, or should be, the main goal of any movie of any genre. Yet, some mysteries will hopefully be unravelled in the sequel.

Ridley Scott definitely knows how to sell a movie and everything in this one looks absolutely terrific; the visuals are literally otherworldly and there are no wasted shots nor annoyingly noticeable CGI. Prometheus is a visual treat, and its experience gets even better with the amazingly effective score.

Prometheus is a very solid and satisfying sci-fi movie and it should be an inspiration to blockbusters in general. The closing sequence, when the birth finally occurs, is brutal and it reminds you of why you love movies in the first place. And the question remains.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Sometimes, the thing you've been looking for your whole life, is right there beside you all along."
3 May 2017
Character-driven ensemble pieces are fast becoming my favorite sub- genre within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. James Gunn takes all the style and flair from his first beloved (and slightly smug) space adventure, and adds a great deal more substance this time around. Too often blockbusters have taken the shortcut to meaningful character development, audaciously implying or declaring their heroes to be a "family" without putting in the necessary leg work. Guardians Of The Galaxy is one such movie, but its sequel goes about actually justifying it. It sure as hell earns that smugness.

Above all else, it gets its characters right. Gunn's working with a larger ensemble this time, and yet, somehow, nobody feels as short- changed as before. He shrewdly invests in some unexpected pairings, leading to a whole new wave of hijinks, heart and hilarity. This isn't the Peter Quill show anymore. Rocket & Groot aren't the only dynamic duo in the business. Each sub-plot imbues these heroes/anti- heroes with greater depth, even if it's at the sake of the story's momentum. We're able to explore powerful father-son themes, build on relationships featured in the first film, and bask in the incredible chemistry shared between this wonderful cast. Even the various antagonistic figures feel more fleshed out than the shouty-pouty- Ronan - and you're given a very strong reason to hate a few of them here.

The film walks a fine tonal line between high stakes sci- fi/adventure and light-hearted comedy - and to its credit mostly succeeds. The timing doesn't always work. Gunn undercuts a few key emotional scenes with the odd tired one-liner, but the goofy self- parody is, once again, quite endearing. This also leans more towards a Star Wars-inspired space opera. The stakes feel naturally higher, and splitting up the core group allows for multiple interwoven subplots - each one separated by a different visually stunning setting. It lends the story a sprawling sense of scale that proves that, in this case, bigger is indeed better.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
"You're a man looking at the world through a keyhole. You've spent your life trying to widen it."
1 May 2017
Recently I think people have forgotten why we go out of our way to see a film in theaters. To me it's to experience something unique, entertaining, just to have fun. Almost every studio these days, it's all about the NEXT film, the bigger and better film. With Doctor Strange it comes to a new level, it's got flare, originality and that's why I think it's above most comic book films.

Don't get me wrong I adore the team films and I love sequels but one day for me they'll get boring, that's why we need films like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange to show we can have original concepts yet still strive in a larger universe. The greatness of the film of course comes from it's ability to have an excellent story and it's visual storytelling to be through the roof.

Let me first say that in my opinion Benedict Cumberbatch is a superb actor who gives an outstanding performance as Dr. Strange, who at times is an ass but at the same time he's able to portray him as sympathetic. He allows his character to "consume" him and gives his whole which shows and results in him becoming one of my favorite characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Despite the lack of her in the first half Rachel McAdams also gives a great performance outside her usual rom-com roles. She wasn't one of those defenseless love interests, she had a part to play and I love that. All three of the mystic team; Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Wong, and Tilda Swinton, as the infamous "Ancient One" are all fantastic in their own rights as well. Mads Mikkelsen, oh my god, he is so good in this. I've seen him in close to nothing and now I want to watch every things he's in.

Scott Derrickson, who I've never seen a film from, manages to have all these components put together beautifully and uses slick and smooth direction to enhance the experience and result in a hell-of-a ride. His pairing with the best cinematography I've seen all year result in the most beautiful looking film all year. Okay but seriously Doctor Strange has the best visuals I've seen in along time. It's just oozes magnitude. I was in shock and in awe for every sequence, my eyes were glued to the screen and I was so happy for that.

Although it follows the mainstream marvel origin story, Doctor Strange still manages to not feel like every other superhero movie. Of all the Marvel Studios' origin story's like Iron Man and Thor thankfully Doctor Strange is in the top tier. I'm really excited to see where the MCU takes this character because he has a lot of potential and had a great start here.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
"Do you even remember them?. I remember all of them"
1 May 2017
The first outing that Anthony & Joe Russo had in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, did everything for me. It landed amongst my favorite films of all time and became my favorite film within the MCU. So you can imagine the anticipation level I had for this and after my first viewing of it, I knew I loved it.

Leading up to the release of Captain America: Civil War, I couldn't sit still and I was beyond excited for it. As I watching it for the first time I couldn't believe just how great it turned out to be. Unlike previous superhero films released in 2016, Civil War hit me like a truck in its epicness and it resonated with me a lot more than I realized. Soon after that, I went to see it again in theaters and it still worked for me. Everything came together beautifully and it was a true masterpiece in my eyes.

The things that both Russo Brothers did for the character of Captain America is brilliant. They knew how to handle him - from doing his sequel - and they knew how to handle a lot of characters, like Joss Whedon did. With just two films in, they've created two of the best comic book films to date, and two great films in their own. Their direction here is near flawless. With exception of a few scenes being a little to shaky, the way they shot action is done so well.

Speaking of action, I don't think there's been great action like this since the first Avengers film. Its funny how well those two films feel like each other. In most cases Civil War is just Avengers 2.5, and I think the Russo's handled it so well. Not only does the hand-to-hand fighting feel tightly done and exciting, but the fighting done in bulk - like the airport scene - works so much better.

After the second Avengers film I didn't think anyone could handle all those characters and plot points like Whedon did and yet, the Russo's do it perfectly. I love how this is just as a Captain America movie as it is an Iron Man movie. Going in I was Team Cap all the way, but watching it time and time I feel for both sides and I ended up switching on multiple occasions. That's why I think it works so well - the way that they handled each character and their arc. Black Widow, Hawkeye, and Vision, aren't A-list characters, but the Russo's used them to their advantage and made it work.

I was really surprised on how performance driven Captain America: Civil War really is. Its political talk but its so interesting and it kept me interested. This is easily Robert Downey Jr's show because is acting here is really great. The speech he has about the young boy they kill is passionate and RDJ owns it. Chris Evans and Sebastian Stan both chip in fantastic performances and their chemistry together works. The team is also really great with Jeremy Renner being my favorite.

The addition of Black Panther and Spider-Man had me worried at first. I wanted so bad to see them on screen, but I didn't want them to be crammed in. Thankfully, they aren't. Tom Holland is perfect as Spider-Man. He has the dorky side that Tobey played so well, and he had the sweetness that Garfield had as Spider-Man himself. He was truly the perfect combination of both. Chadwick Boseman is fantastic as well. He's got this vibe to the character of Black Panther that works so well. We all know that the MCU has villain problems, but it stops here. Daniel Brühl is magnificent as Zemo. He's badass, he's smart, his plan makes sense and his overall reason for it all is done so well.

The film isn't a masterpiece in terms of film, nor is it as well crafted as some other comic book flicks before it. But there's something special about it every time I watch it. It could be my love for these characters, it could be the epic airport scene, or it could just be entertaining as all hell. I don't know what it truly is that makes this work for me, but Captain America: Civil War passed all my expectations and has made it a new favorite of mine for the years to come.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ant-Man (2015)
7/10
"Why don't you just call The Avengers?"
30 April 2017
I guess I owe Peyton Reed an apology. I wasn't entirely right in saying Ant-Man was going to be bad. In fact, I had a lot of fun with it. I loved how small-scale the movie was, and Paul Rudd was great here. His arc is predictable, sure, but he does a good job giving the character some personality where the script failed to do so. Rudd is a guy who I love to watch in movies, so seeing him get his "big break" here is personally awesome for me and honestly would have been even if the movie wasn't good.

However, I had some serious issues with the movie. Now, whenever the film really honed in on the "heist" aspect of the story, it worked. But, the MCU references bring the film to a screeching halt. One scene in particular (spoiled by the ads, so I'll talk about it) involves the lead having to steal something for Pym, only to find out the base where this technology is at is actually an Avengers base. This leads to a completely unnecessary and out-of-place fight between Ant-Man and Falcon. Yeah, it was kind of cool, but man, forced doesn't even begin to describe how this scene felt. This is something that definitely wasn't in Edgar Wright's original script.

Speaking of Wright, Peyton Reed does try to mimic Wright every so often, and I wish he hadn't. The montage scene early on with Michael Pena worked, but the fast cuts and other montages similar to what you'd see in Wright's films just don't. You really shouldn't try to imitate other directors, especially one as visually distinct as Wright. Thankfully, Reed doesn't fall back on his style often and has his own voice, even if it is more mainstream.

As a whole, though, Ant-Man is a fun movie that is refreshingly small, but ultimately gets bogged down whenever it tries to tie itself to Marvel's Cinematic Universe. Which is a shame, especially knowing that with Wright at helm, it would have definitely been more of a standalone feature and it probably would have been even better.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed