Mega Review: The Avengers

• Directed by: Joss Whedon
• Written by: Joss Whedon, Zak Penn
• Cast: Robert Downey, Jr.; Chris Evans; Mark Ruffalo; Chris Hemsworth; Scarlett Johansson; Jeremy Renner; Tom Hiddleston; Samuel L. Jackson
• Genres: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
• MPAA Rating: PG-13

Our Megareview will comprise of reviews from all of the  staff. You can skip to the review from your favorite writer or enjoy all that we have to offer and read the whole thing. Welcome to the Mega Review for ‘The Avengers’:

Synopsis: In The Avengers, Nick Fury, director of the peacekeeping organization S.H.I.E.L.D., recruits Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America to form a team that must stop Thor’s brother Loki from enslaving the human race.

My Initial reaction was “I really enjoyed the Avengers”. A LOT. It’s not to say that the movie was perfect by any means. In fact I was a little disappointed with the writing and story introduction at the beginning of the film. The introduction at the beginning of the film isn’t all that good and doesn’t help introduce those who haven’t seen all of the previous shared Marvel Universe efforts but the film tries its best to push passed that and anchor your interest in the spectacle of seeing all the characters together. The movie essentially picks up where last years Marvel films ‘Thor’ and ‘Captain America’ left off with the cosmic cube. It’s rushed, a little forced, and in some ways irresponsible. It’s hard to completely fault the writing because, in all honesty, it’s probably pretty hard to tell all these guys’ story outside of a montage. It just seemed forced and that word kept popping into my head throughout the beginning of the film.

Once the movie progressed beyond the opening it started to gain momentum and its at this time you welcome the idea of enjoying the film for what it is. This isn’t a ‘Lord of the Rings’ of ‘The Dark Knight’ type of movie that develops and grounds itself in its own realm of reality. The environment isn’t a character in this movie but rather a skewed version of our world in which these fantastic things just happen to happen. It’s an action film based on comic characters. It’s pure fiction, pure eye candy, pure action and that’s where it tries to excel and be the best. The best eye candy, the best entertainment, the best of the Marvel movies and it accomplishes this on a lot of ways. Some ways it doesn’t meet the lofty expectations that the Avengers set based on the fact that it doesn’t introduce the reality in which these characters live.

If you haven’t seen the previous Marvel films, (Iron Man; The Incredible Hulk; Iron Man 2; Thor; Captain America: The First Avenger), then you’ll find yourself scratching your head with regard to the excitement of others who have seen those movies. As a standalone film this movie fails in that aspect. It does. As a companion or extension of the MArvel movie universe it works on a lot of levels. It picks up the characters and maintains the character personalities that were introduced in those stand alone flms and it works great. Seeing them interact with each other and not sacrificing anything learned or developed in the individual movies is a huge accomplishment and is one of the most enjoyable things about the movie. It gives them a playfield, they do their thing, and you remember them individually.

One thing that was really important and cool was that Loki and his army developed into a threat that individually none of them would be able to overcome. As a team and a force giving a collaborative effort was a necessity rather than just something to feed the audiences. Seeing the individual parts is where the rest of the enjoyment is found. Everyone filling a role and playing their position and with playing their position them growing in their personalities to fit that position was key and seeing them as a whole being what makes them special. Iron Man is the tool, Thor and Hulk are weapons, Captain America is a leader and seeing him take charge and shout orders to everyone as he assumes the role is exhilerating. Nobody appointed him but he just stepped up and took charge and everyone fell in line from Hulks, to Spies, to Gods and the movie exhuberated cooperation and thats what made The Avengers work. They needed each other.

It’s hard to ignore the performance of Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Bruce Banner. The reason being is that he’s like the only Avenger actor in the film who hasn’t appeared in a previous Marvel film. I won’t compare actors who have played Dr. Banner to Ruffalo. Ruffalo was a convincing and entertaining Dr. Banner. He really adopted the character as his own and delivered us a look at the character that we haven’t seen in previous films but can really enjoy. He was witty, charming, and portrayed a troubled scientist in ways that I didn’t know he had in him and was a great casting for the film. He delivered a sense of humor with a lack of angst that we’ve seen from the Hulk in previous Marvel films and they alter his character slightly but appropriately to better fit in this constructed Marvel film universe.

Chris Evans may have given one of the most under-appreciated performances in the film. His portrayal of Steve Rogers is something I’d been looking forward to since the announcement of the Avengers. I specifically refer to his performance as the one of ‘Steve Rogers’ rather than Captain America because he has the ability to really humanize his performance. This is a simple man displaced in time put in the impossible situation of organizing and inspiring those around him to work together. Captain America is the nucleus of the Avengers and an important aspect for the film to work relies heavily on Evans’ “Steve Rogers”.

Robert Downey Jr. IS Tony Stark. I don’t even think he even creates a character he’s just himself and he picks up where he left off when we last saw him in Iron Man 2. The Stark snark is in full effect and he is what we’d expect from him based on his previous performances. Jeremy Renner and Scarlett Johannsen round off the Avengers ensemble and while they aren’t super powered they are tenacious and just as valuable as the other members on the team. I was a little disappointed with Jeremy Renner’s performance as I felt he really didn’t adapt a character for Hawkeye or reflect the characteristics of the hero expected by comic fans. Johanssen actually eclipsed him with her performance as the sultry Black Widow and showcased a super spy that had layers. She’s not a soldier but rather a spy in a war so her skill set is anchored in information extraction and she showcases some delightfully entertaining ways to exercise those skills. Lastly Sam Jackson as Nick Fury… I don’t want to say I wanted ‘more’ from him but I was underwhelmed. In fact Clark Gregg eclipsed him as the badass of S.H.I.E.L.D. in this film. Agent Coulson becomes a hero in this movie and you learn why Gregg was given his own character poster before the credits roll.

As a pure comic book movie its great. Its geek tastic. As a movie compared to films outside the comic book genre is where the weaknesses shine the most. I liked the movie but I expected to like it MORE. It’s great and opens the door for a lot of new potential directions for the Marvel film universe. At 2+hrs the film never even seems ‘long’ and has great pacing. There’s no singular focus on just 1 character and the movie progresses in both interesting and entertaining directions that don’t seem ‘forced’ or dragged out in the slightest after the opening of the film.

I give the Avengers an 8 out of 10

Review: Men In Black III

• Director: Barry Sonnenfeld
• Writers: Lowell Cunningham (comic), David Koepp (screenplay)
• Stars: Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin
• Genre: Action, Sci-fi, Comedy
• MPAA: Rated PG-13

Synopsis: Agent J travels back in time to prevent Agent K from being assassinated and to stop an invasion of planet Earth.

Sequels are always difficult. Rarely are they better than the original because it is quite the challenge to compete with the original film. Men In Black III is essentially an expanded plot for the original film. There is still a new and fresh story but what makes this movie enjoyable is the development of the characters that we love from the original film.

The film quickly establishes the villain for the film and his need for revenge against Agent K. Agent J and Agent K continue to have their same conversational banter that we’ve seen in the previous films but this time there is a secret that K is keeping from J. That secret is brought to light after hearing of the main villain’s escape from prison. This secret is something that is obviously haunting K and becomes a piece of the plot that keeps the audience’s interest in the film. At the time the secret is introduced, the villain is using a device that will allow him to travel back in time to kill Agent K and also inevitably doom planet Earth. Agent J is sent to stop this villain and save the world while discovering the secrets of Agent K’s past along the way.

Agent J is the same character that we’ve loved from the previous films. Will Smith always plays the role of comic relief well, mixing in the bits of drama where they are needed. Although Agent J is the primary character throughout the films, the more interesting role is Agent K because of the secrets surrounding him and the fact that he is played by two great actors. Tommy Lee Jones has the role of the introduction and the closing for Agent K while Josh Brolin gets the role of defining Agent K. This gives Agent K’s character a sense of duality with characteristics that tie both versions of K together and subtle intended differences that separate them apart. Brolin’s performance is spot on. While the audience may get a laugh from seeing and hearing Tommy Lee Jones’ mannerisms and vocal diction acted out through Brolin, the dramatic moments are there as well making it easy to see Brolin as a younger Jones.

The relationship between J and K is strengthened by J getting to know K’s past self and learn more about why he turned out the way that he did. Both characters develop a deeper understanding for one another as the mysteries of K begin to unravel and J becomes more accepting. As they team up in the past to hunt the main villain, there are many reminiscent moments of how they worked together in the first film. The initial taking of J’s gun from K, the calm and collected manner of K versus J’s take action now attitude, and K’s subtle agitation with J are all moments from the first film that are renewed in this one.

The setting of the film is a very dynamic one dealing with time travel. The special effects are very smooth and work well with the 3D effect. The time travel sequence shows New York City rapidly changing between past and present which makes a very unique backdrop for time traveling versus the usual “portal effect” or white light backdrop that is common in other time travel films. The 1960s setting is also done very well. The cars, the people, the clothing, and even some of the camera shots themselves have that 60s feel to them. A recurring joke throughout the film is the lack of technology when it comes to commonly used gadgets such as their vehicles and the standard issue neuralizer. You will often hear a wisecrack from Agent J when it comes to using this technology. I thought the 1960s setting provided a welcomed variation from the first film unlike Men In Black II. Getting to see the agents work in a different environment while still applying elements of the first film made this film a much more worthy sequel than the previous film.

Overall:

I would not say that this film was better than the first film but it was definitely better than the second. This film was a proper sequel because it focused on character development, properly continuing the franchise. We discovered more about Agent J and Agent K which brought some added humor but more importantly brought some deeper dramatic moments. You have the usual theme of preventing planetary destruction but the true purpose of this film was character development. It brought a solid closure to the franchise by completing the circle of the main characters’ relationship. The film had a great mix of comedy sprinkled with the right amount of drama and was a welcomed addition to the first film.

8/10

A welcomed addition to the Men In Black franchise.

Review: Prometheus

In 2089, archaeologist couple Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a star map among several unconnected ancient cultures. This is interpreted as an “invitation” from the creators of humanity known in the film as the “Engineers”.  Peter Weyland, the very elderly founder of the Weyland Corporation, finances the creation of the scientific vessel Prometheus in hopes to follow the map to the distant moon LV-223.  The ship’s crew, composed of scientists, engineers, and biologists travels aboard “Prometheus”.  David, (Michael Fassbender), is an android that monitors their voyage. In 2093 the ship arrives and it’s crew, a sleep during this time, is told their mission is to find “the Engineers” by Director Meredith Vickers, (Charlize Theron), ordering the crew to not contact them.  The mission is to find them. Some things are discovered in the cave like structures, which for the sake of spoiling will not reveal any further details of the plot.

After speculation and an aggressive innovative marketing campaign, Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” is a glorious sci-fi adventure horror treat for the fan boys. If one is able to tone down the hype to a rational level then  audiences will at least be captivated by the visuals of your smarter-then-your-average summer blockbuster. If you were one of ‘those people’ who dissected the trailers a few dozen times then the shock and awe might wear thin on you and you could possibly be let down. For me, who avoided trailer saturation, there’s so much more in Ridley Scott’s “Prometheus” then I was expecting.

Ridley Scott pours his talent and filmmaking experience into all of “Prometheus”. With stunning cinematography, captivating visual effects, crisp sound, thrilling intensity, and the dreary atmosphere Mr. Scott manages to configure all these fantastic elements into top-notch. The climatic shuttle launch and planet split, (as seen in the trailer), was a special effects bonanza and the use of 3D was astonishing and impressive especially during two scenes when you see the ships traveling in space and during the wind storm on the planet. The one characteristic which doesn’t deliver like all the other technical aspects is the screenplay. Fanboys who were drunk on hype could be hungover with disappointment in this area. Co-written by Damon Lindelof, (co-creator and executive producer for the television series “Lost”), “Prometheus” covers deep existential and philosophical possibilities on the creation of man without revealing a core theology.

The two best performances in the “Prometheus” came from the scene stealing Michael Fassbender and rising star Noomi Rapace. Fassbender has the benefit of more of a ‘character’ to play with as he portrays the android “David”. His motives are impure being the one character who is guided purely by a curious mind and has no sense of moral compass. Noomi Rapace is exploring on  a different level and is guided by her faith coupled flash back memories of a relationship with her father. Rapace plays a tough heroine extremely well and she is featured in a scene so shocking, and somewhat sickening, that it might be the most memorable moment in the film. I kept thinking back to that gruesome moment days after my screening of Prometheus and realized it left a long term impression. Without spoiling the ending, it seems obvious a sequel is pending and how the origins of other creatures came to be. As David the android says, “Big Things Come From Small Beginnings” indeed.

I have a feeling the “Prometheus” has enough plot twists and lingers enough unanswered questions that it will confuse and possibly alienate some audiences looking forward to a gory “Alien” movie. This is a shame. There are obvious moments where references to other “Alien” films and in a summer with dumb sequels, stale CGI, and weak scripts “Prometheus” sets the bar pretty high for technical wizardry for 2012 and maybe even the next few years beyond.

Rating: 8.5 out of 10

Review: Act of Valor

Synopsis: During the past several years, filmmakers have made introspective movies about the modern day military and the challenging environment the war on terror has provoked. These have arranged from various topics including the Best Picture winning take on an adrenaline addicted Afghan bomb squad (‘The Hurt Locker’), the objective foreign policy quagmire (‘No End in Sight’), an embedded journalist’s perspective of Afghanistan’s deadly terrain (‘Restrepo’), the lack of media clarity in war reporting (‘Control Room’), and even a melodrama with an enraged father seeking the truth (‘In the Valley of Elah’). “Act of Valor” is a film that gives us the perspective of Navy SEALs, those who love America so much they are willing to put their own lives on the line. We haven’t seen their perspectives…until now.

“Act of Valor” stars a group of active-duty U.S. Navy SEALs in a film like no other in Hollywood’s history. “Act of Valor” takes the viewer where few have gone before which is a fictionalized account of the real life SEAL operations, . When a mission to recover a kidnapped CIA operative unexpectedly results in the discovery of an imminent, terrifying global threat, an elite team of highly trained Navy SEALs must immediately embark on a heart-stopping secret operation to prevent a lethal terrorist attack.

A relentless action movie such as “Act of Valor” wasn’t meant to offer a perspective of 21st Century warfare like the previously mentioned films, and that’s quite all right. But in its own way, it does. For the first time, actual U.S. Navy SEALs portraying on the job techniques as main characters. This is a gimmick that works. Focusing with laser precision on the logistics in conducting their top-secret missions, “Act of Valor” was an exciting, thrilling, and chaotic action adventure movie similar to the popular television show ‘24.’

Some major weaknesses prevent the film from elevating to a higher level of achievement with a few sloppy, unnecessary, slow motion clichés and glimmers of Michael Bay-esque flashy techniques, (on a smaller scale). This hindered some of what I enjoyed about the film. “Act of Valor” made that up with better and spectacular show stopping cinematography courtesy of photographer Shane Hurlbut. The acting, even from non-military service members, topped off with a very cluttered screenplay was sub par but thankfully, that’s not the draw for this movie.

Co-directors Mike McCoy and Scott Waugh make an impressive directorial debut putting the viewer into a video game like simulation of modern warfare.  Eager to capture realistic action sequences as much possible, both these co-directors used up to 12 cameras while independently directing and filming various aspects of a scene. For one major scene the filmmakers were given GPS location to coordinate the shoot on the nuclear sub having to “shoot the entire sequence within a very limited window” (i.e. less then four hours total). These guys know what they are doing. The Navy did provide the filmmakers with access to their stations with a set agreement: “Nothing could interfere with Navy schedules and production wouldn’t cost the United States government any money.” How’s that for movie making?

Many filmmakers have covered the war on terror with various angles but they have neglected the perspective of the service members. With ‘Valor,’ the action adventure movie genre almost felt like it was being re-invented. Scott Waugh, a retired stuntman, was named by Variety as one of the 10 directors to watch for 2012. Previously he developed advertising with Electronic Arts with their games Battlefield 3 and Medal of Honor. Other then being a fun, escapist adventure pic, “Act of Valor” provides another snapshot view to the incomplete collage of what modern warfare in the age of Middle East terror looks like. One that has a lot of kick ass action. So if you avoided ‘Valor’ because of the bad reviews, please give the movie another chance in a cheaper viewing format. I think most critics were distracted by the poor acting and other characteristics. After all, 25% of critics liked it on Rotten Tomatoes versus 78% of moviegoers who liked it via user app Flixster. The unexpected winter hit grossed $70 million at the box office with a solid audience response, rightfully so.

Rating: 7 out of 10

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man

• Director: Marc Webb
• Writers: James Vanderbilt (screenplay), Alvin Sargent (screenplay)
• Stars: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans
• Genre: Action, Adventure, Fantasy
• MPAA: Rated PG-13

Synopsis: Peter Parker searches for clues leading to his parents’ disappearance which in turn introduces him to Dr. Curt Connors, his father’s former partner. Along the way a laboratory mishap changes him into Spider-Man, a crime fighting, spider-like superhero.

The film opens with an abrupt introduction to a young Peter Parker and his parents fleeing their home after Peter’s father Richard finds his office ransacked. Peter’s parents drop him off at his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben’s (Martin Sheen) home where they give him an upsetting farewell and are never heard from again. The film quickly flashes forward to a high school version of Peter (Garfield) living with his strong willed and nurturing aunt and his wise and outgoing uncle. Despite having these strong parental figures Peter is very much a frail social recluse. Even though he is frail, he makes up for it in heart as he attempts to defend those who are picked on at school, himself included. His continual feud with Flash Thompson (Chris Zylka) reiterates this character trait as Peter continually defends the would be victims of Flash and ends up taking the beating instead. The continual punishment and bullying are a couple of the many factors that push Peter to an introverted state where he focuses on his hobbies of skateboarding and his fascination with science. These interests, combined with a curiosity surrounding the life of his father leads him to Oscorp which is where his father worked as a scientist. While posing as an intern, Peter is able to sneak into Oscorp but is quickly recognized by the lead intern, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), who decides not to reveal him if he stays out of trouble. Peter of course sneaks into a restricted area in hopes of discovering more about his father’s work, leading him to a room of spiders. Gwen quickly discovers him and forces him to leave as he is bitten by a spider.

With the exception of the quick introduction of Peter’s parents, the Spider-Man story has been told. The story of his powers and coming to terms with them has been told multiple ways with a similar origin through a variety of films, TV shows, cartoons, and comics. What sets this film apart from the rest is not the origin story but the characters surrounding it. Andrew Garfield defines the “Amazing” in “The Amazing Spider-Man.” He plays every aspect of both Peter and Spider-Man perfectly and has no trouble with the duality of the role. He brings both a new level of emotional depth to Peter and finally a confidently sarcastic humor to the role of Spider-Man.

Emma Stone, as Peter’s love interest Gwen Stacy, is an unexpected surprise. I was expecting a witty role similar to the characters I usually see her play but I was definitely able to see Gwen rather than Emma by the end of the film. She plays a very subtle type of sexy in the film that adds to the chemistry with Garfield. They have a few intimate moments throughout the film but it plays to the “less is more” factor by showcasing their growing desire for one another.

The one role that I was not impressed with was Rhys Ifans as Dr. Curt Connors. Once he changed into The Lizard, I saw no need for Dr. Connors. I expected a Jekyl and Hyde type of portrayal but instead just received Hyde and Hyde inside Jekyl’s body. The parental figures of the film all had smaller roles but their roles were just as significant as the main characters’ roles. Sally Field was not very memorable as Aunt May, she stood firmly and quietly in the background throughout the film. She portrayed the character well and her dramatic scenes were significant to the development of Peter, but she had very little screen time to truly discover who this version of Aunt May was. Martin Sheen however had a strong presence on the screen. His role of Uncle Ben is key to the foundation of Spider-Man but on top of that he provided a stern voice of reason and light moments of humor that established Peter’s superhero persona. Uncle Ben is Peter’s true reason for becoming the Spider-Man we know and Sheen’s portrayal made me see why. Dennis Leary as Captain Stacy was another surprise to the movie. He had a stern demeanor about him and a sense of duty to uphold the law but you could also see the loving father in him. Leary was able to be both a father and a leader as Captain Stacy and also provided Spider-Man’s sense of justice to overshadow his sense of vengeance.

The characters may be the backbone of the film, establishing roles that capture our interest, but the overall cinematography and action sequences are what makes this film a necessity to see again. Spider-Man’s action scenes are fluid and extremely well choreographed with a mixture of acrobatics and Parkour like movement. What I liked most about these scenes is that they made sense. The fights were natural (as natural as they can be) for two super powered rivals. The Lizard played to his size while Spider-Man played to his speed making the battles very entertaining. I would also recommend seeing this film in IMAX 3D, the action shots work really well in both 3D and the IMAX format. I actually thought the first person shots that were seen in the trailer would be a little “cheesy” but they were a welcomed addition to the film. The mixture of camera angles kept me on my toes and added to that heart-pounding action. The 3D was the best I’ve seen this year and as much as I hate to say it…I liked the 3D shots better than “The Avengers.” The 3D depth was extremely smooth and did not strain my eyes in the least. It was captivating watching the small dust and ash particles, and with the multiple camera angles, it made you feel like you were in the film.

Overall I was extremely impressed with Marc Webb’s version of “Spider-Man.” The biggest attribute of the film was Andrew Garfield and I pray for a sequel to see him reprise the role. The one drawback was having to retell the story that so many people know but this was a remake so it had to be done. The movie had a list of captivating characters, visually stunning scenes, and heartfelt heroic moments that remind us why we love Spider-Man.

The Amazing Spider-Man – 8.5 out of 10.

A familiar story with an amazingly new adventure…

Mega Review: The Dark Knight Rises

• Director: Christopher Nolan 
• Written by: Jonathan Nolan, Christopher Nolan
• Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Anne Hathaway, Tom Hardy, Marion Cotilard, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Morgan Freeman
• Genre: Action, Drama
• MPAA: PG-13

Eight years on, a new evil rises from where the Batman and Commissioner Gordon tried to bury it, causing the Batman to resurface and fight to protect Gotham City... the very city which brands him an enemy.

"The Dark Knight Rises" leaves the fanciful early days of the superhero genre far behind, and moves into a doom-shrouded, apocalyptic future that seems uncomfortably close to today's headlines. As urban terrorism and class warfare envelop Gotham and its infrastructure is ripped apart, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) emerges reluctantly from years of seclusion in Wayne Manor and faces a soulless villain as powerful as he is. The film begins slowly with a murky plot and too many new characters, but builds to a sensational climax.

The result, in Christopher Nolan's conclusion to his Batman trilogy, is an ambitious superhero movie with two surprises: It isn't very much fun, and it doesn't have very much Batman. I'm thinking of the over-the-top action sequences of the earlier films that had a subcurrent of humor, and the exhilarating performance of Heath Ledger as the Joker. This movie is all serious drama, with a villain named Bane whose Hannibal Lecterish face-muzzle robs him of personality. And although we see a good deal of Bruce Wayne, his alter-ego Batman makes only a few brief appearances before the all-out climax.

Bane, played by Tom Hardy in a performance evoking a homicidal pro wrestler, is a mystery because it's hard to say what motivates him. He releases thousands of Gotham's criminals in a scenario resembling the storming of the Bastille. As they face off against most of the city police force in street warfare, Bane's goal seems to be the overthrow of the ruling classes. But this would prove little if his other plan (the nuclear annihilation of the city) succeeds.

Bane stages two other sensational set pieces, involving destroying the Stock Exchange and blowing up a football stadium, that seemed aimed at our society's twin gods of money and pro sports. No attempt is made to account for Bane's funding and resources, and when it finally comes down to Bane and Batman going mano-a-mano during a street fight, it involves an anticlimactic fist-fight. He blows up the city's bridges and to top that lands a right hook on Batman's jaw?

Bane is the least charismatic of the Batman villains, but comes close to matching Bruce Wayne and Batman in screen time. The film also supplies a heroic young cop (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), two potential romantic partners for Wayne, and lots of screen time for series regulars Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, remarkably effective in several trenchant scenes), Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) and the genius inventor Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman).

One of the women is the always enigmatic Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), and the other is Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard), a millionaire who may be able to rescue Wayne Enterprises after Bane's stock market mischief wipes out Wayne financially. Catwoman is a freelance burglar who's always looking out for number one, and Miranda is a do-gooder environmentalist; both are drawn irresistibly to Bruce, who is not only still a bachelor but has spent the last eight years as a hermit, walled up in Wayne Manor with the loyal Alfred.

All of these characters and their activities produce stretches in the first half of the film during which, frankly, I was not entirely sure who was doing what and with which and to whom. The movie settles in for its sensational second half, however, although not everybody will be able to precisely explain the deep stone well where Bane imprisons Bruce Wayne. The circular walls of this well represent a deadly climbing wall by which anyone can try to reach freedom, but few succeed. The actual location is in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India, and we get a glimpse of some zigzagging stairs that are unforgettably shown in "Baraka." Turns out Bane was held there as a child.

This is a dark and heavy film; it tests the weight a superhero movie can bear. That Nolan is able to combine civil anarchy, mass destruction and a Batcycle with exercise-ball tires is remarkable. That he does it without using 3D is admirable. That much of it was shot in the 70mm IMAX format allows it to make that giant screen its own. That it concludes the trilogy is inevitable; how much deeper can Nolan dig? It lacks the near-perfection of "The Dark Knight" (2008), it needs more clarity and a better villain, but it's an honorable finale.

The Dark Knight trilogy is a 9,5 out of 10.

Review: Trouble with the Curve

• Director: Robert Lorenz
• Written by: Randy Brown
• Starring: Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, and Justin Timberlake
• Genre: Drama
• MPAA: PG-13

Synopsis: An ailing baseball scout in his twilight years takes his daughter along for one last recruiting trip.

“Trouble with the Curve” is said to be Clint Eastwood’s final film so it would seem fitting for it to have a slightly more jovial and humorous tone than his previous films. While films like “Million Dollar Baby” and “Hereafter” continue taking dramatic moments on a downward spiral, this film counters the depressing moments with equal moments of joy and laughter.

 The overall story is very good and carries many side stories in an attempt to keep the audience engaged in the film. While there are many significant subplots within the film, there are too many to maintain enough focus and become engaged in these stories. One part of the plot that I would have liked to see further explored was the significance of a scout in the age of computers. It would have been interesting to see this film continue to go the opposite route of last year’s baseball film “Moneyball” and argue the significance of scouts versus statistical analysis. The relationships also suffered from a lack of attention. There was not enough time for the characters to develop so that the audience could get to know them and sympathize with their needs. Although many of the aspects of the plot were entertaining, I left the theater wanting to know more and pondering about what could have been further explored in the plot.

Like the plot, many of the character stories could have used a little more focus. Gus is a familiar character that we’ve seen Eastwood play many times. Gus was almost exactly like Eastwood’s character from “Gran Torino” with the only exception being a lack of racial slurs. Gus’ daughter Mickey (Adams) also played a generic role of a distant daughter who gets lost in her career. The developmental relationship between Gus and Mickey was entertaining and the chemistry between Eastwood and Adams in these roles was very fluid and natural as they seemed to balance one another by essentially combining the new with the old. The on screen chemistry begins to fade when a younger scout named Johnny (Timberlake) is introduced. Justin Timberlake did not fit into this role and his dialogue felt rushed as if he were reading a cue card. His chemistry with Amy Adams felt so unnatural and forced that I believe it actually made her seem like a bad actress during those scenes. Some actors just don’t mesh well on screen but I think Timberlake didn’t mesh with this film, I didn’t find his character interesting in the least and as previously stated, he wasn’t believable in the role. If his screen time would have been significantly reduced, I think the film could have been much better and a lot less generic. John Goodman, Matthew Lillard, and Robert Patrick all had minimal screen time but were significant to the film and Justin Timberlake’s character deserved no more time than them. The film should have followed the flow of the trailer and focused on two things, the relationship between Gus and his daughter, and the evolution of the scouting process and how Gus remains significant.

Overall I would say that the film was enjoyable but the story was lacking. There are so many side stories within the film that it is hard to connect with the significant story lines that build the main plot. If the focus would have remained on the development of Eastwood and Adams’ characters and their relationship to baseball scouting, this film could have been absolutely amazing. Instead the film consistently leaves and returns focus from the main plot which disconnects the audience from the film and makes them have to remember where they left off. Although the story is lacking, it follows a generic story that people may still find enjoyable although predictable.

Trouble with the Curve – 6.0 out of 10.

A potentially great story that lacks development

Review: Looper

• Director: Rian Johnson
• Written by: Rian Johnson
• Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt 
• Genre: Action | Sci-Fi | Thriller 
• MPAA: R

Synopsis: In 2072, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to ‘close the loop’ by transporting back Joe’s future self.

 

While “Looper” focuses on time travel, this is not entirely what the film is about. The time travel aspect of the film makes for some great “make you think” moments and special effects, but the purpose of time travel in this film is to present a character’s internal struggle externally to the audience. By putting a young and reckless Joe versus an older and experienced one, the audience is able to watch one character develop from two different actors. I thought this was a very unique concept compared to many of the redundant stories and themes we’ve seen in other films because the protagonist and antagonist are essentially the same person.

The aspect of two characters playing one is a unique strength of the film but it is also a flaw. Even though they are the same person, there was a needed amount of time to develop the Joe from the future and the Joe from the past. The amount of time spent on back story takes away from some very intriguing sci-fi concepts introduced early in the film and reintroduces them at points where they’ve almost been forgotten by the audience, like the effects of time travel and the evolution of the human race. It is clearly stated in the trailer and the film that the focus is not time travel when Bruce Willis says, “I don’t want to talk about time travel,” but it would have been nice to see a bit more elaboration on the concepts that were introduced early on and only discussed in bits and pieces throughout the film.

While the plot is interesting, it is Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance that is the highlight of this film. He is on the rise right now and “Looper” is a good depiction of why. His portrayal of a younger Bruce Willis is unbelievably accurate. From his voice to a simple look over the shoulder, JGL matches Willis’ every motion and expression while still managing to make the character uniquely his own. The only downside to his character would be the makeup job. In low lighting it is fine, but in the more well lit scenes the overly large eyebrows make him look more like a caricature of Willis rather than a younger version.

“Great performance…horrible eyebrows…

Bruce Willis could almost be considered a supporting actor based on his screen time versus JGL’s screen time. Willis was effective in his role despite playing the same type of character we’ve seen him play before. His best moments in the film are when he is in a close proximity discussion with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. There you get to see how well their mannerisms match while also noting the differences of how the character has evolved over time. The other minor roles serve a minimal purpose in the film. Paul Dano and Jeff Daniels add story to the time travel, mob aspect of the film and Emily Blunt and Piper Perabo add to the conflict between the main character/s.

Overall

I thoroughly enjoyed “Looper.” The story held my interest from start to finish and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance was amazing. My one suggestion would be to not go into the film expecting a sci-fi action film because you could easily lose sight of the film’s focus. As a sci-fi fan, I was disappointed with the lack of time travel discussion and other elements introduced, but the film comes together at the end and shows its true colors as a strong character development piece. With this film you get a bit of everything and it is sure to satisfy a variety of tastes.

Looper – 8.0 out of 10.

A one of a kind action film that has something for everyone…

Review: Argo

• Director: Ben Affleck
• Written by: Chris Terrio (screenplay), Joshuah Bearman (article)
• Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Tate Donovan
• Genre: Drama | Thriller 
• MPAA: R

Synopsis: As the Iranian revolution reaches a boiling point, a CIA ‘exfiltration’ specialist concocts a risky plan to free six Americans who have found shelter at the home of the Canadian ambassador.

Ben Affleck hits the big screen once again as the star and director of the film “Argo.” Affleck excels in the role of director by keeping the suspense running from beginning to end, while providing accurate historical facts and value. By starting the film with a factual backstory, there is more focus on the characters of the film, establishing a stronger relationship with the audience through each character’s personal struggle. Having the facts disclosed up front also keeps a consistent flow of character development and suspense running simultaneously which makes “Argo” a film that you become easily lost in and forget that it’s just a movie.

“Argo” takes place in the United States and Iran, constantly switching between the two as the CIA works on solutions to rescue the Americans. While the Iran scenes were actually filmed in Istanbul, the look and feel of Iran is established through effective recreation of areas like the Bazaar and historic scenes based on the true events. The U.S. scenes mostly take place in an office setting except for the few scenes in California when creating the fake film. Despite the fact that the setting is mostly indoors, the characters themselves are the focus and their interaction with their surroundings establish the setting as effectively as the cinematography.

The characters’ struggle is the focus of this film and their emotional reactions to that struggle are what strengthen and develop the ongoing suspense in the film. There is a long list of well known actors and actresses and overall there are no bad performances, no matter how large or small the role. Ben Affleck gives a good performance but the director’s chair is where he shines. Affleck’s role is similar to many of his other recent roles, which is a character of few words and little emotion. While his performance is actually good, there is not much of a dynamic to the character, which shows little range in Affleck’s abilities as an actor. Bryan Cranston seems to be appearing everywhere lately and it is obvious when you see any of his roles. In “Argo” he manages to add to the suspense of the film by his amazing performance that showcases the panicked state of the CIA when putting together the mission. His role is a minor one but it is very much needed because he is Affleck’s support throughout the mission. John Goodman and Alan Arkin provide small bits of humor and pleasantries to the film. I always enjoy Arkin’s brash and subtle humor and it meshes well with Goodman’s character in the film. Their roles are the basis for the proper execution of the mission and they both provide the moments that allow you to catch a breather in between the heart pounding suspense. Although their characters are pleasant, it is the suspense that drives this film and the characters that stir up that suspense are the highlight of this film. My two favorite roles in the film were the ones played by Kerry Bishe and Tate Donovan. While the roles of many of the Americans in Iran are executed well, it is Bishe and Donovan that shine. Their performances are the best of the film in my opinion. I had no trouble seeing Bishe as a worried wife and Donovan as the elder and leader of the group of six. Their ability to play their characters’ roles so well while also posing as a film crew within those roles showcases the most dynamic roles in the movie. They are able to play two roles at once as they play the victims in Iran and then move to playing a role of a film crew which is meant to be played not so well. I could look at both of these actors throughout the film and could not even notice a minor facial expression that was out of character.

Overall I would say that “Argo” is a must see. It is one of the most suspenseful films that I have seen in awhile which can be proven by my lack of fingernails after the film ended. There are a variety of great actors and actresses in the film, as well as some notable performances, and an attention grabbing plot that is for the most part historically accurate. I believe that Ben Affleck has found his calling as director and “Argo” may be his best directed film yet. “Argo” is put together extremely well and I find it difficult to find one element of the film I did not like.

Argo – 8.5 out of 10.

Heart pounding suspense that engages you from start to finish…

Review: Flight (2012)

• Director: Robert Zemeckis
• Written by: John Gatins
• Starring: Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Kelly Reilly, John Goodman, Bruce Greenwood, and Melissa Leo
• Genre: Drama
• MPAA: R

Synopsis: In this action-packed mystery thriller, Academy Award winner, Denzel Washington stars as Whip Whitaker, a seasoned airline pilot, who miraculously crash lands his plane after a mid-air catastrophe, saving nearly every soul on board.  After the crash, Whip is hailed as a hero, but as more is learned, more questions than answers arise as to who or what was really at fault and what really happened on that plane?

A lot of people will notice the advertising for this film emphasizing the flight and the daring landing performed by Denzel’s character Whip Whitaker. The film isn’t about the actual events of the plane, the crash, or the court case that followed but is rather a character analysis of a man struggling with alcohol addiction. After the plane crash officials drew a blood sample from Whip and tested it to discover that he had alcohol within his system at the time of the crash. This is a little misleading from what’s in the trailers and leads the viewer to discover what the film is truly about in a remarkable way. Now, this isn’t like when Drive was marketed as a fast paced action film and some viewers were disappointed when they found out what it really was about. This is a good surprise because you’re satisfied with everything that’s shown in the marketing within the first hour. It’s like finding the prize in the cereal box, digging deeper, and finding another and more intriguing prize hidden a little deeper within. There’s lots of smoke and mirrors but it pays off in a positive way.

First thing about this film that caught my attention was the presence of Denzel. You’ll often hear actors and those involved with his films emphasize the presence he brings to a set and it’s almost noticeable in his co-stars’ performances. Denzel gives an expected performance, partly due to the characters he portrays. It’s an almost generic performance and I wouldn’t be surprised if anyone cried out that he’s John Q/Frank Grimes with a drinking problem. It’s remarkable that he can sleepwalk through a performance and yet somehow satisfyingly entertain this blogger by upping the ante during the key scenes and delivering accordingly. He relies on his presence but with his method of performance it works and people tend to act “around” Denzel as opposed to acting “with” Denzel. Everyone else talks “up” to him and Denzel tends to talk “down” to everyone else, solidifying himself as the alpha early on.

 John Goodman provided a fairly fun character  as Harling Maysthat and also didn’t seem like too much of a stretch of his natural self. He seems very relaxed portraying a guy who drinks frequently and loves a good line of coke once in a while with friends. Again, it didn’t feel like this was too much of a stretch. He was actually very appreciable whenever he was on screen and managed to lighten the tone and inject some humor with his presence. He has some very interesting chemistry with Washington and seems to be the exception with the “talking up, talking down” thing which helps with his portrayal of a close friend and confidant. Don Cheadle also popped up in this film from time to time and did a serviceable job as attorney Hugh Lang. He wasn’t a primary character within this film but exhibited a smart and focused character attempting to help a man maintain his freedom.

I loved the overall direction of this film and let me explain what I mean: This film is a complete package. The pacing, cinematography, and even the soundtrack is overflowing with an older charm that I don’t always see in movies. I didn’t feel that any scene lingered too long or ended abruptly, no upsetting shaky cam, and no awkward accompanying music to a scene to remove you from you immersion into the film. The cinematography was very satisfying, overall, with the angles and shots used. I want to give special emphasis on the soundtrack as I found myself tapping my feet and nodding my ahead along with the scenes as they went along. There are those key moments when, sometimes, filmmakers will rely on the soundtrack to guide you through a scene without any dialogue and if I hadn’t been paying close attention I wouldn’t have noticed the technique in practice which is a credit to those involved with editing and direction. I was really happy with the soundtrack, and sound overall, and if I’m not mistaken I could swear I heard a song play from beginning to end and it wasn’t a detriment. Think about that, you might appreciate that fact as much as I do.

I was very surprised by the length of the film clocking in at over 2 hours in length. Now whats surprising is that the film didn’t feel too long and seemed to reach its natural conclusion. When the film ended, in my theater, the movie received a standing ovation with people seeming to really enjoy this movie, and where it went, and the ending which was extremely satisfying. The character arc introduced at the beginning of the film reached where it needed to reach before the credits appeared.

My gripe with the film would be with some of the weaker performances within the film. I won’t name names because in reality it’s only a minor nitpick but some of the other performances were weaker than what I believe they were aiming to deliver.

If you don’t see this in theaters make sure you watch it when it hits home release as this is the first film bringing back director Robert Zemeckis to the live-action department. Check out our recently published an interview with Zemeckis conducted by New York Film Academy’s own Frank Pasquine.

I give Flight an 8 out of 10.

Review: Jack Reacher

• Director: Christopher McQuarrie
• Written by: Christopher McQuarrie (screenplay), Lee Child (book)
• Starring: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, and Richard Jenkins
• Genre: Action | Crime | Thriller
• MPAA: PG-13

Synopsis: A homicide investigator digs deeper into a case involving a trained military sniper who shot five random victims.

‘Jack Reacher’ has a unique combination of elements. The main character is that familiar James Bond type hero that seems to be invincible but in between the action there are also elements of mystery and suspense. While the film tends to not focus on one particular genre, there is just enough focus on each element to hold the audience’s interest and produce an enjoyable film.

When a film carries the main character’s name in its title, you can expect the focus to be on one character while the other roles could just be considered supporting roles. He is a character that we’ve seen Tom Cruise play before and he tends to play these types of characters well. Reacher is a quiet, fearless individual with a subtle sense of humor that is shown through a variety of action hero type quips. His character is meant to be mysterious, which is fitting of the role, but still left me wanting to know more about who ‘Jack Reacher’ really was. The supporting roles of Helen (Pike) and her father (Rodin) are more elements of the story than characters themselves. They act as catalysts that move the investigation along as the mystery slowly unravels. The combination of these generic supporting characters and the purposefully mysterious origin of Reacher provide very little character development even if it may be intended. But what the film lacks in character development it makes up for in action and suspense.

When the action occurred, it was well executed and exciting which made me want more during the downtime. I wanted to see more of Reacher’s abilities as a fighter and since they made him out to be a sort of one man army, I wanted him to be pushed to his limits. A particular action scene that I liked was the car chase. The chase was real, as well as the driver’s abilities. There were no unbelievable stunts, Reacher would hit walls, make wrong turns, and make mistakes like any experienced driver. The crime mystery was a bit predictable and at times had me bored when Reacher was going through the motions of unraveling the case. The case isn’t completely cut and dry but don’t expect for some elaborate scheme to unfold at the end.

Overall I would say that I enjoyed the film despite the predictable plot. Tom Cruise plays a character that he has proven to play well and ‘Jack Reacher’ has the potential to be a franchise character in film. Many will enjoy this film as it gives a proper dose of action and suspense that holds the audience’s interest for the most part. If they do continue to make ‘Jack Reacher’ films, I would hope that they make the plot a little more complex, provide a bit more detail about his origin, and add a bit more action with more formidable opponents.

Jack Reacher – 7.0 out of 10.

A nice combination of action and suspense…