Review: The Great Gatsby

IMDb

Title: The Great Gatsby 
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Writer(s):  Baz Luhrmann (screenplay), Craig Pearce (screenplay)
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joel Edgerton, Tobey Maguire,Carey Mulligan
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language
Running Time: 143 min
Synopsis: A Midwestern war veteran finds himself drawn to the past and lifestyle of his millionaire neighbor.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 47% "Fresh", Top Critics: 32% "Fresh", Audience: 84% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 55 out of 100, Users: 8.0 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 58 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based from the book with the same name, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: If you take in account of the atmosphere of the "Roaring 20's" then this film is an action film all the way. This film dose a good job leading us through the life of an adventures "playboy" of the 1920's.    

• Comedy Elements: This film continues down the road of the 1920's when it come to the comedy in the film, therefore it exemplifies the light heartness of that era.  

• Dramatic Elements: This is where the film shine brightest. I like how well the film portrayed the themes and motifs from the book.    

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: The film plays with some fantasy elements but only in an artistic way. This film is more or less a dramatic comedy.   

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7:  Leonardo DiCaprio recreated Gatsby. I personally like his portrayal. The other actors did a great job as well, except maybe Tobey Maguire. I'm only saying that because he always seem a bit awkward, or even "out of place" in all this roles. So in general Tobey Maguire is already a hard sell. The dialogue is rememberable and quotable.Which I think come from good script writing.          

• Art Direction: 8: I feel like Baz Luhrmann film's always have good art direction. To me his film are a cross of beautiful and trippy, not psychedelic, but colorful. That might be attributed to the cinematography style he uses in his films. I really love the costumes in this film, I know that's a different department, but bravo. 

• Cinematography: 7: The cinematography style in this film must be trademark by Baz Luhrmann's "DoP" because as I was watching this film It reminded me of his other films like Moulin Rouge or even Romeo + Juliet. That's not a bad thing, its in my opinion a good thing, make it more distinguished.            

• Direction: 6: I felt like this film was to much like roller coaster in its pacing...to fast, then to slow, up then down..ect.         

• Editing: 6: The editing in this film is weird like most of Baz Luhrmann's films.     

• Screenplay: 7: I thought the character developmental in this film was fantastic as far as that goes. For the adaption part, I sit on the fence. I barley remember reading the book in high school, which was long enough time ago to forget a good chunk of the story. From what I have heard it is a solid representation of the book.                     

• Sound and Music: 2: Now for the worst part of the film in my opinion. Everything about the 1920's atmosphere was represented in away that was copacetic, except for music. Who in there right mind decided to mix 1920's music with modern rap. The music was actually a detraction because it didn't fit the atmosphere. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to make the connection that irresponsible party attitude of the "Roaring 20's" is a refection of today. I also noticed that sometimes they would use "rap music" to highlight the black culture having a good time, which I felt was very stereotypical if not border line racist. I don't know what they were trying to achieve with music, all I know is it was BAD.        

• VFX: 7: The visual effect accompanied the art direction and cinematography very well .    

Overall: 6.5: Strip away the Baz Luhrmann style and this film dose even worse. I feel this film is good for a one time go at the movie theater for the matinee prices, or just waiting and renting it. I think this film is also more enjoyable with a group over watching be yourself.           

Review: Iron Man 3

IMDb

Title: Iron Man 3 
Distributor: Marvel Studios, Paramount Pictures
Director: Shane Black
Writer(s): Drew Pearce (screenplay), Shane Black (screenplay)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Guy Pearce
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content.
Running Time: 130 min
Synopsis: When Tony Stark's world is torn apart by a formidable terrorist called the Mandarin, he starts an odyssey of rebuilding and retribution.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 79% "Fresh", Top Critics: 70% "Fresh", Audience: 83% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 62 out of 100, Users: 6.5 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 69 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based of comic book character with the same name, thank you Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.  

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: There is always one thing you can count on during the summer movie season and that is action. Iron Man 3 is chalk full of action.    

• Comedy Elements: Let's take a shot for every "smart-ass" remark Tony Stark says, and see who gets drunk first. Most of the comedy in this film is in the form of one-liners, or campy slap-stick from Irom Man suits. 

• Dramatic Elements: Personally I thing this area failed the most. The revenge theme the film was striving for could have been better. In my opinion I think "death" works better than "in the hospital dying" in a revenge scenario.   

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: I think some of the Stark-tech in this film was a bit on the lacking side.  

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 6.5: Overall the acting was solid. Just look at the cast. I think Terrence Howard has more personality and was a better James "Rhodey" Rhodes but Don Cheadle makes a better "War Machine" but that's not why the score in this category is on the low side. Over doing it on the campy dialogue is what was disappointing to me. I feel this film was trying to focus on a serious themes and conditions like that of post traumatic stress disorder, which Tony Stark showcase through out the film, but then they watered it down with comedy.       

• Art Direction: 7: The different suit designs were cool.  

• Cinematography: 7: I sometimes have trouble with action films because the framing is wonky and shaky, therefore the action develops to fast...Iron Man 3 is NOT one of those film.      

• Direction: 6: Full epicness wasn't achieved. I felt that most of the "epic moment" of the film were turned into humors ones. Besides that the pacing and action seem well choreographed.      

• Editing: 7: I feel in some parts there was going to be a big reveal like, the under ground hall of suits, but then it cuts to something else. That just might be attributed to my personal expectation of what was going to happen.     

• Screenplay: 6: Things that angered me: The villains were misrepresented, the person who defeats the villain wasn't Iron Man, not enough time devoted to "Iron Man" aka Tony in suit, to many suit failures...ect.               

• Sound and Music: 7: The sound track was decent.    

• VFX: 7: Soild ILM work...even though most of it seem to be a suit fest, especially near the end.    

Overall: 6.5: This film is somewhere between being awesomeness and disappointment, or maybe its just my nerd rage flaring up and it was better than what it seem. I enjoyed the film overall but parts of the film agitated my Iron Man nerd-isms.          

Can any genre of film produce a good sequel?

There is two ways to approach this question, financially and aesthetically.

We have to remember that filmmaking is a business therefore the purpose of producing films is to make money. With that being said let me share this antidote. A new filmmarker is personally given a thousand dollars to make their film. The overall gross of this film is five thousand dollars, which is a profit of four thousand dollars. The producer of the film will then hint at the idea of a sequel, knowing that there is potential of striking gold. This producer will sweeten the deal by given the filmmaker more money to make the sequel. The filmmaking process is repeated with the same formulas with hopes of profit. This process will be repeated until the films become not profitable, or the filmmaker runs out of ideas. Before the filmmaker runs out of ideas, the producer will take the project and hand it to a filmmaker willing to piggyback off of someone else idea. This very producer could very well utter these words, “We will make twenty of them if it puts money in my pocket.” This antidote defines “good” in the question, Can any genre of film produce a good sequel, as profitable. The answer to this question will be yes if the film will be profitable for all parties in the end. This isn't a bad way of thinking, any good business man should think this way but film is also an art form, therefore pleasing the aesthetics audience has to be factored into the formula.

I believe the best way to pin down the aesthetic of sequels is to look at what “we” want in a story. Realistically, everybody wants something different, hence why many different genres and sub-genres exist. I believe that certain genre lend themselves to sequel more than others. The following characteristics of a story tend to need sequels to develop well round movies: Epics with rich lore and well developed characters, exploration of a new and existing world or universe, pop culture icons with many years of cannon. Movie that are made with these characteristics tend to fall in one of the following genres: adventure, comic book, fantasy, horror, or sci-fi. While other stories only need one telling, because they are that good. Most genres that encompass this notion are action, comedy, thrillers, and western. Some of these genres might be easier to stretch into more than one film but others like comedy it’s a bit harder. Comedy is hard because its nature is to be funny. Have you ever heard a joke that has lost it funny? Most answer this question with yes because when jokes are told over and over they began to become unfunny. The same happens with comedy film and their sequels, jokes are recycled and it becomes unfunny. Not to pick on comedies by any means , but my point is some genre it’s hard to make a good sequel because the information given in the story doesn't lend to expansion.

Review: Django Unchained

IMDb

Title: Django Unchained
Distributor: Weinstein Company
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer(s): Quentin Tarantino
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong graphic violence throughout, a vicious fight, language and some nudity.
Running Time: 165 min
Synopsis: With the help of his mentor, a slave-turned-bounty hunter sets out to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 89% (Fresh), Top Critics: 79% (Rotten), Audience: 94% (Like It)
Metacritic: Critics: 81 out of 100, Users: 8.0 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 80 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: The Head of Quentin Tarantino and company.  

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This film isn't action pack, but it has it far share of action, and blood, and guts ect. Its a a quintessential guys movie, would Tarantino have any other way.  

• Comedy Elements: This film inst a comedy by far, but it have a good amount of humorous lines. 

• Dramatic Elements: This were the movie takes the cake mainly because Tarantino knows dialogue and how to make well written characters, now more than ever. He seem to even cast the perfect people as well. I hope to see some nomination out this film.

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film is a period piece so the visual effect were in the form of fake blood and gun shots. 

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 9: Most of people who are fans of Quentin Tarantino film knows the man can damn right write good dialogue. Django Unchained is very much his handy work but a bit better. The words coming out the actors mouths fit the character to a tee, more then they did in his earlier work. Heck we started to see this evolution of his work a few years back with Inglourious Basterds. The actors themselves were also golden. I mean Oscar golden. 

• Art Direction: 8: Got love the western backdrop meeting with the deep south. There was a good amount of locations most of them fitting the bill for the scene.

• Cinematography: 8.5: With every Quentin Tarantino film there are those special camera choice that seem to end up in everyone of his film. That's not bad it just a signature, and I like it. I think its fun and brings a new perceptive to the scene.   

• Direction: 9: I thought the pacing of the film was good. Like most of Tarantino's work the surprising turn around between "acts" was good as always. I personal like a movie every once in while break the mold and step out of it genre and try something new or even crazy.  

• Editing: 8: I kind of glad Quentin Tarantino didn't break down in acts like he tends to do. I enjoined the story to unfold for itself.  

• Screenplay: 10: I will say it again and again until it becomes untrue Quentin Tarantino makes damn good scripts with well developed characters and stories. What more can you ask for? I typically like Sci-fi movies but nothing comes close to well written movie. I like Sci-fi for the adventure and the fun aspect not necessarily the writing but Tarantino usually provides both fun and great writing.        

• Sound and Music: 7: I always think the music choice in Tarantino films are weird but kind of work. The same would be true for this film.   

• VFX: 7: The FX in this movie and most of Quentin Tarantino film can be done with prosthetic and fake blood, but making believable is hard part. Dose it really matter if it looks real, when a guy arm gets blown off and more blood then normal appears, I didn't think so.   

Overall: 8: Lets just say this will mostly go down as another cult classic like other Tarantino film tend to do, but it was a good movie. I enjoyed myself. I say to all the girlfriends give your man a shot. After you drag him into Les Miserables let him drag you into Django Unchained. I think it will be a win-win. Don't get me wrong Les Miserables was fantastic but Django Unchained might as well be up there with is, especially for the GUYS out there.         

Review:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

IMDb

Title: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Distributor: New Line Cinema
Director: Peter Jackson
Writer(s): Fran Walsh (screenplay), Philippa Boyens (screenplay), Peter Jackson (screenplay), and Guillermo del Toro (screenplay)
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, and many others Dwarves
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images.
Running Time: 169 min
Synopsis: A younger and more reluctant Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, sets out on a "unexpected journey" to the Lonely Mountain with a spirited group of Dwarves to reclaim a their stolen mountain home from a dragon named Smaug.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 65% (Fresh), Top Critics: 42% (Rotten), Audience: 81% (Like It)
Metacritic: Critics: 58 out of 100, Users: 8.5 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 64 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Adapted from the book titled "The Hobbit" written by J. R. R. Tolkien

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This film was jammed packed with action. Sadly the critic didn't like the added action sequence, the majority of them seem to agree it slowed the film down, unsaid of making it more exciting like action suppose to do. There was only one add scene that I questioned only because it remind me of Rockem Sockem Robots, but even then it was still a fun an entertaining moment in the film.

• Comedy Elements: This film is an adventure, and a fun one. In any fantasy story who doesn't love a fun bunch of Dwarves. Personally I think Dwarves are funny

• Dramatic Elements: This movie didn't hit a large array of emotions like The Lord of the Rings but it showcased a good amount of them, enough to make it feel little more than a fun adventure.

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film takes place in Middle-Earth, so not having fantasy elements in the film is like not having sugar in ice cream.

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 8: The actor they got to play the younger Bilbo was great. He not only matches the nuances of Ian Holm but Bilbo as a character himself. I saw Bilbo not an actor punting up his best efforts to play Bilbo. I enjoyed the cameos from the old cast from Lord of the Rings. I like it when film series keep their worlds tight buy casting the same actors.
• Art Direction: 9: Peter Jackson and his team at WETA make some awesome stuff that is equally beautiful while at the same time believable. i understand a good part of this was due to the beautiful landscape of New Zealand

• Cinematography: 7: I personally can't wait to see this film again but this time in 48fps. I know a lot of people say it weakens the VFX and at times it detracting but the film was made that way so I attend to see it in that format. I will make a judgment call then, so for now I will say it looked good.

• Direction: 8: I think the movies actually flowed well. Yes it’s a long movie but it didn't really feel that long, maybe it’s because I was have a great time. Compared to Lord of the Rings this film is more uplifting and fun. I hate to say this but The Lord of the Rings can become a bit boring sometimes. What I'm trying to say is you would have more luck getting a child to watch the entire movie without getting bored than you would with The Lord of the Rings.

• Editing: 7: I don't think my eyes are as a tuned to editing as everything else or there wasn't anything god awful wrong with the editing.

• Screenplay: 9: From the amount of "The Hobbit" I have "read" [I listen to a good chunk on audio books] I was impress with how closely the film and book were related. Some parts of the movie were even verbatim. Let's just say those parts warmed my heart. I also like the add parts to connect the cannon that Peter Jackson created with The Lord of the Rings. This aspect even bleeds into the filmmaking itself, including the music and camera work. Now I know a lot of critics are putting out negative feedback saying things among the line, "This film is draw out and should have been one, 2-2½ film and not three." Personally I can't play the "what if" game, so I won't. This whole time I have been saying this film was very fun and entertaining; the story didn't detract from that.

• Sound and Music: 7: The score was awesome. It was nice hearing melodies from Lord of the Rings. It was another element that grounds this movie in Middle Earth Peter Jackson has made.

• VFX: 8: It worked; there wasn't a time in the film I said that's fake and bad VFX. I believe Peter Jackson has improved since Lord of the Rings.

Overall: 8: I personally enjoyed the film and I can honestly recommend it to pretty much anyone, even a family of five. I believe the money spent at a movie theater on this film is very well spent. I think the critics are out of touch with the audience on this one. It might not be a critically acclaimed film like Lord of the Rings but it was a good movie and I'm bold enough to say great.

Review: Prometheus

IMDb

Title: Prometheus

Distributor: Scott Free Productions

Director:Ridley Scott

Writer(s):Jon Spaihts, Damon Lindelof

Staring: Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender,Charlize Theron,Idris Elba,Guy Pearce, Logan Marshall-Green,Sean Harris, and Rafe Spall

MPAA Rating: Rated R for sci-fi violence including some intense images, and brief language.

Running Time: 124 min

Synopsis: A team of scientists journey through the universe on the spaceship "Prometheus" on a voyage to investigate Alien life forms. The team of scientists becomes stranded on an Alien world, and as they struggle to survive it becomes clear that the horrors they experience are not just a threat to themselves, but to all of mankind.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 74% (Fresh), Top Critics: 73% (Fresh), Audience: 75% (Like It)

Metacritic: Critics: 64 out of 100, Users:6.8 out of 10

MRQE Metric: 69 out of 100

My Review

Source Material:  Original work written by Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof, set in the "Alien" franchise universe.

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This film was fairly action pack but not overly exciting.  

• Comedy Elements: A few good one-liner, this film fit the horror sci-fi genre. 

• Dramatic Elements: Very little, if any.

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: Very beautiful.     

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: Hands down the strongest performance is Michael Fassbender as David the "Prometheus"  android. A character that was build to be visually human but in the inside he's nothing more a robot, therefore lacks a soul and can't understand human emotions. Add in pride and a directive programmed by a master with alternative motives, then the mission at hand, and you got yourself a home brewed complex human machine. His portrayal was brilliant. As far as the other charters go they were average at best. But that may be because they were basically written to die, meaning little to know importance for them to be in the movie, but we can discus that latter on. Personally Guy Pearce should have been used more, or maybe even cast as a different character. I feel his talent wasn't utilized very good. The lead female was good, but not strong of a character as Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien film. I kind of would like to see some of actor that were potential candidates for this film over the actors in the film. Actors like,James Franco or Ben Foster.            

• Art Direction: 8: The creature design has the same awe but gross awesomeness that the original Alien films. When a filmmaker brings the same craftsmen back from a previous film of his to over see his new project, the results is good. 

• Cinematography: 7:Personally it was pretty good. I was gladden to see this film was film with Red camera. I m a big fan of digital filmmaking. Don't get me wrong 35mm film is great but some of the digital stuff out now days, primarily Red camera, looks damn good.    

• Direction: 6: I felt the film seem a bit rushed. There seem to be lit no character development. Like I said before I felt that the majority of the character were written in just to be killed off.    

• Editing: 6: Personally it was to much like a summer action flick, therefore attributing to its fast pace. 

• Screenplay: 6: The story I felt was weak. I felt the biggest let down was character development. I feel that there was a whole ship filled with a hand full of crewman with personal motives to why they were there. Once the audience found out why character "A" was there he or she was killed off. I understand you need a good amount of pointless characters to kill of in horror move, but dose every character need to be such character? I also think that part of the reason this film struggles with good writing is because of its identity crisis. It was intend to to be a film set before "Alien" as "prequel" while at the same time be a stand alone film with its own mythology, separated from the mythology created in the Alien franchise. I see this film as more or less as an "Expanded Universe" with origin ties. The redeeming factors of the story was the H.P Lovecraft themes of the film, and the search for ones self and what we truly believe in. Those two aspects of the film reeled me back in, every time back character development cast me out.           

• Sound and Music: 6: The music didn't really do its job.

• VFX: 9: The film made a cool looking future that actually looked beautifier in every way. This is one of the strongest attributes of this film if not the strongest.     

Overall: 7: This film was personally enjoyable, mainly on the fact I enjoy a decent sic-fi film. There is a great deal of flaws with this film critical. I can't fully recommend to everyone but overall it was decent to say the least.     

Review: The Avengers

IMDb

Title: The Avengers

Distributor: Marvel Studios, Paramount Pictures

Director: Joss Whedon

Writer(s): Joss Whedon (screenplay), Zak Penn (story)

Staring: Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo, Chris Hemsworth, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Tom Hiddleston, and Samuel L. Jackson

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action throughout, and a mild drug reference.

Running Time: 142 min

Synopsis: Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D. brings together a team of super humans to form The Avengers to help save the Earth from Loki and his army.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 93% (Fresh), Top Critics: 86% (Fresh), Audience: 96% (Like It)

Metacritic: Critics: 69 out of 100, Users:8.9 out of 10

MRQE Metric: 77 out of 100

My Review

Source Material:  Based on the comic book characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This movie is action packed it was a shame I had to get up so many tines to deal with a toothache. I also damn my balder. 

• Comedy Elements: I personally was laughing quite a bit. There are a lot of one-liners written perfect for each character. 

• Dramatic Elements: Very weak in this department of cinema. 

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: Its a comic book movie that combines: Aliens, "Gods," Super Soldiers, and Superheros all in one movie.    

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 8.5: The performance ere solid. This cast is filled with a great pantheon of good actors. Some more notable actors are  Robert Downey Jr,  Mark Ruffalo, and  Tom Hiddleston. I personally think these guys performed the best.  Robert Downey Jr charisma never failing,  Mark Ruffalo filling big, and  Tom Hiddleston convincing bad guy.         

• Art Direction: 8: With comic book movies today, I believe its the art director job to capture the vision of the old school (70's and 80's comic style) and modernized (today's style) to new school, without looking dorky or fake. I think this was was done very well in this movie.  

• Cinematography: 7.5: It was good but personally I think some of action sequence were a bit to chaotic. 

• Direction: 8: I felt the film started off a bit on the slow side but it pick up pace fairly quickly. The ending was a minor let down but I didn't read the book before hand so I don't know whats to come.  

• Editing: 8: If there is one "nerd' director that would be Joss Whedon. He is actually know more for writing great sci-fi television series. I like his writing style on this film and how that detail was carry out in the direction.  

• Screenplay: 9: The story was solid. I like the homage to original avenger's comic. What sold me the most on this movie was character dialogue. This how I see the dialogue between Joss Whedon and his staff:  Joss, "Lets give this line to said character cause it will be funny" everyone else in the room, "No that won't work" Joss, "you want to bet - Hey Robert can you try this line for me, its for kicks" Robert, "Sounds good...says line." everyone else, "this guy knows his stuff maybe" I shared this example because there are so many good line in this movie written perfectly for each character.      

• Sound and Music: 7: Typical summer blockbuster music. 

• VFX: 8: There was cool tech from S.H.I.E.D and Tony Stark. The Hulk looked best he's ever had. So over all the visual effects were good.   

Overall: 8.5: This film was very enjoyable. Entertainment Value of this film is perfect. So if you are type of person who likes films only on how entertaining they are, then The Avengers is a perfect movie for you. With that being said the cinematic value isn't to bad either, not necessarily Oscar worthy but over all it was fun. I recommend seeing this one in the theater and bring a buddy cause this film was loads of fun.