Review: Godzilla (2014)

IMDb

Title: Godzilla
Distributor: Legendary Pictures
Director: Gareth Edwards
Writer(s):  Max Borenstein (screenplay), Dave Callaham (story)  
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn.
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of destruction, mayhem and creature violence.
Running Time: 123 min
Synopsis: The world's most famous monster is pitted against malevolent creatures who, bolstered by humanity's scientific arrogance, threaten our very existence.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 73% "Fresh", Top Critics: 67% "Rotten", Audience: 81% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 62 out of 100, Users: 8.1 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 69 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on classic Japanese Kaiju films with the same name. 

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: The last twenty minutes is where its at, nice Kaiju on Kaiju action.  

• Comedy Elements: Um, not too much comedy to see here.       

• Dramatic Elements:  A SAD attempt at drama.        

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film is chalk full of monster film goodness.       

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7:  Don't get me wrong, I love the cast of the film. There is some great talent among them. I felt some of them were underutilized. I will explain this in more detail in the writing section of this review because it's more of a writing flaw. Bryan Cranston owns every last minute on screen. Ken Watanabe has one of the best voices. It was awesome listening to him tell us the origin of Godzilla.         

• Art Direction: 8: I liked that the backdrop of this film was the "Ring of Fire." They don't mention that in the film, but its interesting to look at the location of the film and make that geographical connection. (Philippines, Japan, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and San Francisco) The locations match up with the story. Again, this movie main focus was Godzilla, and the art a visual effect showcase that aspect.    

• Cinematography: 9: Oh man a lot of these shots were awesome. The POV shot of the soldiers parachuting in was one of many ways the cinematographer emerged the viewers into this world. I personally like how they showcase the scale of Godzilla and MUTO's compared to everything else. The action sequence was filmed in a way that emerged the audience without using shaky cam. I kind of liked seeing some of the fight sequences on the news because it, placed it in a 2014 world. What I mean is we are so obsessed with our screens, our devices, and our technology that we don't pay attention to the disaster happening outside.           

• Direction: 7: The director of this film is fairly new, he has only done one or two pictures before this one, most notability Monster. On Monster he did pretty much everything (VFX, Directing, Writer, Cinematographer, ect) I think the skills he learned on that film translated over because the biggest positives of this film is its VFX and Cinematography           

• Editing: 7: I interrupted this monster fight for a meaningless "dramatic" scene.   

• Screenplay: 5: I want to explain underutilized characters / actors in this film.Bryan Cranston's plays a guy, father of Aaron Taylor-Johnson character,  who becomes obsessed with figuring out the real reason the power plant he worked was destroyed. This very same "accident" takes his wife's life, which adds to his drive for the investigation. !!!SPOILERS!!! After Ken Watanabe's character discovers Cranston's character and more importantly, his research, Cranston's character is killed by one of the MUTO's. His death has little to no impact on the other characters in the film. You would think his death would impact Aaron Taylor-Johnson character and be apart of his driving force to solve this MUTO issue, but it's not END OF SPOILERS That's one of many examples of character being written flat in this film, BUT this flatness is kind of a positive because this film isn't a story of humanity defeating giant monsters. This film is about Godzilla being a hero.

• Sound and Music: 8: I liked the score it was very fitting, That Godzilla roar was perfect.  

• VFX: 10: I hope for the Academy recognize this film in the visual effect category when award season come around. I think the director's background with VFX help because this movie looked damn good. Godzilla was awesome visually.          

Overall: 7.5: Are you a guy? Did you like dinosaurs as a kid? Do you like giant monster wrecking cities? If you said yes to all these, then go see the new Godzilla.              

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Review

IMDb

Title: The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Distributor: Sony
Director: Marc Webb
Writer(s): Alex Kurtzman (Screenplay), Roberto Orci (Screenplay), and Jeff Pinkner (Screenplay), James Vanderbilt (Screen story)  
Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, and Dane DeHaan
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action/violence.
Running Time: 142 min
Synopsis: Peter Parker runs the gauntlet as the mysterious company Oscorp sends up a slew of supervillains against him, impacting on his life.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 54% "Rotten", Top Critics:37% "Rotten", Audience: 77% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 53 out of 100, Users: 7.8 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 55 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on comic book characters, from Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. 

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: Short burst of action mix among the love story that explodes into a giant battle sequence near the end of the film.     

• Comedy Elements: There are a lot of playful and kind of "cheesy" one liners, lines you expect characters from a spider-man comic to say.       

• Dramatic Elements: There is great chemistry between Garfield and Stone.        

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film is chalk full of "comic book fantasy" elements.       

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: ALL the actors in this film did a great job, but there was some major character development issues, but we can't blame the actors for that. Andrew Garfield again brings another "old school" but modern Peter Parker to the screen. I liked Emma Stone's portrayal of the adventurous, sexy, and smart Gwen Stacy. Jamie Foxx pulls off both the super geek and the supervillain. Dane DeHaan dose a good job as Harry Osborne but the entire time I was thinking to myself, "This guys reminds me of a younger Leonardo DiCaprio."              

• Art Direction: 7: I felt most of the comic book movies now days go with the "Ultimate" versions of the character design. I'm fine with that decision if it reduces the amount of spandex on the screen. The part I didn't like about the "modern" Peter Parker is making him a "hipster" on a fashion basis. Where was that geek / nerd Peter Parker? 

• Cinematography: 7: The cinematography in this film seems to borrowed some plays from the Zach Snyder playbook, especially when dealing with some of the action sequences. I'm talking about the Snyder slow motion. I understand that Spider-Man has spider like reflexes and they want to capture that on film. Nature filmmakers will sometimes use a high speed camera to film, then play it back at normal speeds creating the slow motion effect. I believe the filmmakers on Spider-Man want that same cinematic feeling.   

• Direction: 6: I personally felt this film was a little bit on the slow side. I'm say that as I was sitting in my seat I was thinking, "Hurry this up and get to the action already" Its not that I'm a an action junkie, but I didn't expect the film to put as much emphasis on the love story as it did. To a certain degree this film "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" its fans. Meaning the love story aspect of the film slowed the film down. Don't get me wrong, the love story did give the film a little more meat, when it comes to story, but from a pacing aspect I believe it slowed the film down.     

• Editing: 6: "Short burst of action mix among the love story that explodes into a giant battle sequence near the end of the film." pretty much sums up the editing in this film. 

• Screenplay: 6: I mentioned before about the bad character development, well let's examine that claim. Electro: He goes from a nobody geeky guy who works for Oscorp to a damn near omnipotent supervillian. The film gives us little to no transition between the two. Harry Osborne is supposed to be Peter Parker's best friend, but we really don't get that vibe on screen. We only really get one scene, where they showcase that really good friendship, but that was more of "I haven't seen you in very long, lets catch up" I think the reason the film fell short in this area is because it was a bit on the over crowed side. I understand the filmmakers are trying to establish a Spider-Man cinematic universe. I believe this film is to be the bridge to other films in the Spider-man universe. All I'm asking for is some breathing room, especially when it comes to the character development. The filmmakers did get one thing right and that was the relationship with Gwen Stacy. Peter has this inner turmoil of trying to uphold the promise he made with Gwen's father verses his great love for Gwen. This emotional connection between Peter and Gwen makes Gwen's inevitable fate from the comic books a powerful scene.                         

• Sound and Music: 7: I liked how they worked the "original" Spider-Man theme in the film, but I disliked the "Dubstep" / "Electronic" themes for Electo. I disliked because it was little to cliche.   

• VFX: 8: It was very well done.    

Overall: 6.75: I enjoyed this film from a entertaining summer comic book stand point, but I was a little disappointed from a cinematic stand point.           

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

IMDb

Title: Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Distributor: Marvel Studios
Director: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Writer(s): Christopher Markus (Screenplay), Stephen McFeely (Screenplay), and Ed Brubaker (Concept and Story) 
Starring: Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, and Cobie Smulders
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence, gunplay and action throughout
Running Time: 136 min
Synopsis: Steve Rogers struggles to embrace his role in the modern world and battles a new threat from old history: the Soviet agent known as the Winter Soldier.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 88% "Fresh", Top Critics:79% "Fresh", Audience: 94% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 69 out of 100, Users: 8.9 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 73 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on comic book characters from Joe Simon and Jack Kirby. 

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: While I would say this film is "action packed" It also dose a good job blending in other elements.    

• Comedy Elements: There were a good amount of quick one liners, most of which revolving the idea, "this joke is for the fans."       

• Dramatic Elements: This film may not pull on your heart strings, but personally I think the film portrays good inter turmoil from a couple different characters.         

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film is chalk full of "comic book fantasy" elements.       

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 8: Let us break it down. Chris Evans, who I personally call the bro of Hollywood, because for a while he played nothing but that type of character. I believe Chris Evans has stepped up his game. I'm not saying he game an Oscar worthy performance here, but he did deliver. Let's just say Chris Evans wasn't my first choice to play Captain America, but he has grown on me. What can I say that hasn't already been said about Samuel L. Jackson. He gives another good performance. I think we get a even better understanding of Nick Fury, while at the same time being  completely clueless. Scarlett Johansson brings her charm to Black Widow again. This list goes on, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, and Cobie Smulders. One last note I hope Marvel uses Sebastian Stan a lot more.    

• Art Direction: 7: This film takes place in Washington D.C. Which is interesting since a large chunk of this film is dealing with national security. I liked the SHIELD suit of Captain America.  

• Cinematography: 8: This film surprised me a little bit on the cinematography. Normally in a high action flick, like this one, the camera is all "shaky" to simulate the feeling of actually being there. This film utilized wider shots and allowing the action sequence to unfold without feeling exhausted afterwards.          

• Direction: 7: The Russo's are primarily known for producing and directing television shows, most notability Community. Making the jump to the sliver-screen with a big blockbuster like Captain America, made me a little nerves. They did a good job. 

• Editing: 8: I really like the film didn't draw things out. I felt the pacing of the film was good. Also making good editing decision pertaining to the action sequence made me less exhausted and more engaged.

• Screenplay: 7: Good story in an action film who would have thought. The story was good not great meaning there was more than just action and explosions. Like I said before we got a deeper look at our principal characters (Captain America, Nick Fury, Black Widow) With Captain America we see him battle with how we should treat national security (1940's vs today) We get the cunning Nick Fury verse the warrior bad-ass Nick Fury we got before. Black Widow is still dealing with her past and all her decisions leading up to now. Since they did spend a good amount of time on the already established charterers, the new characters didn't really have a good backstory. What I'm getting at is Falcon's backstory is kind of weak in this film. I think the Winter Soldier backstory was also on the weak side but I think Marvel has big plans for Bucky Barnes hence the second post credit Easter egg. I also like that this film has a deep emergence into the already well established Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first post credit Easter egg not only hints at Avengers 2 but it connects this film with The Avengers.             

• Sound and Music: 7: The music was fitting

• VFX: 8: It was very well done, especially the "high tech" of SHIELD    

Overall: 8: I really enjoyed this film over all. It has really good action, emergence into Marvel Cinematic Universe, and decent story. What more do you ask for in a comic book movie. I recommended it.          

Review The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

IMDb

Title: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Distributor: New Line Cinema
Director: Peter Jackson
Writer(s):  Fran Walsh (Screenplay), Philippa Boyens (Screenplay), and Peter Jackson 
Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Other Dwarves, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lily, and Benedict Cumberbatch as voice of Smaug
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of intense fantasy action violence, and frightening images
Running Time: 161 min
Synopsis: The dwarves, along with Bilbo Baggins and Gandalf the Grey, continue their quest to reclaim Erebor, their homeland, from Smaug. Bilbo Baggins is in possession of a mysterious and magical ring.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 74% "Fresh", Top Critics: 68% "Fresh", Audience: 88% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 66 out of 100, Users: 8.5 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 70 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based off The Hobbit, and other "Middle-Earth" books written by J. R. R. Tolkien.   

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: Most of the action in this film is fun and a bit whimsical, don't get me wrong there are some bad-ass fights as well.    

• Comedy Elements: The comedy in this film was there to off set the grim tone of Mirkwood, but personally I think there could have been a smidgen more.     

• Dramatic Elements: The main drama in this film is seen in the form of characters reacting to the environment. There is also a small bit of love triangle going on.       

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: "This film is set in high fantasy world called "Middle-Earth" with humans, dwarves, eleves, hobbits, and dragons.       

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: The cast for this film is phenomenal. I like see some of the old face like  Ian McKellen, and Orlando Bloom playing their respectable character from The Lord of the Rings. For those of you who thought Orlando played Bard as well you are wrong Bard is played by Luke Evans. (known for The Three Musketeers, and Immortals)  I agree he does have a similar face but I think he is a better actor than Orlando Bloom.                       

• Art Direction: 9: New Zealand is the best backdrop for high fantasy worlds.     

• Cinematography: 7: The winding camera motion in some of the sequence could cause vertigo especially in 3D, but over all it was well shot.    

• Direction: 6: The film is a long movie, clocking in around 2hrs and 40min. So having few slower part in the center makes this film drag on a bit. I wasn't board but I knew I have been sitting in a theater chair for a while.                  

• Editing: 6: I think they could have given Beorn the Tom Bombadil treatment. I feel like Beorn was good opening mysterious danger that the company has to face, but he didn't really do much for story thereafter. He gave the audience some exposition on the Mirkwoods and then gave the company some ponies that were only used to ride to edge of his proprietary.  

• Screenplay: 7: I know the main buzz that has the fanboys panties in bunch is Legolas and Tauriel. Personally I'm fine with them being in the film and this is why. This film version of the Hobbit is Peter Jackson's interpretation of the Hobbit combined with other Tolkien works like The Silmarillion. Peter Jackson also has taken some creative freedom to create a bridge to connect The Hobbit trilogy to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. From my understanding Legolas and Tauriel are supposed to be one of the main catalyst between the two sets of films.              

• Sound and Music: 8: I have always love the score to the Lord of the Rings / The Hobbit.

• VFX: 9: It visual fx were great can't wait to see this in 48 frames/sec on Blu-ray and what not.   

Overall: 7: I really enjoyed this film over all, sure there was some stuff I didn't like but you get that with every film. I say go see it.            

Review: Thor: The Dark World

IMDb

Title: Thor: The Dark World 
Distributor: Marvel Studios (Walt Disney)
Director: Alan Taylor
Writer(s):  Christopher Yost (screenplay), Christopher Markus (screenplay)...Many More
Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, and Christopher Eccleston
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, and some suggestive content
Running Time: 112 min
Synopsis: Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 66% "Fresh", Top Critics: 38% "Fresh", Audience: 86% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 54 out of 100, Users: 7.9 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 59 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Characters based off Marvel Comic character created by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber, and Jack Kirby .  

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: You defiantly get a good amount of action, almost not stop action.    

• Comedy Elements: Good comic lines interwoven throughout the dialogue.    

• Dramatic Elements: There is a couple good dramatic moments in this film.       

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: "Gods" + Dark Elves + Science +  Different World / Realm, this film is chalk full Sci-Fi goodness.     

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: The acting was sold. Its good to see Chris Hemsworth stepping up his acting chops. I also like seeing the secondary and tertiary actor like Idris Elba, Zachary Levi, and Jaimie Alexander give damn good performance, even though there screen time was weak. Christopher Eccleston is a great actor but his role in this film was baldly written.               

• Art Direction: 7: I like seeing more of Asgard and the other realms as well, over all the art direction in this film was good.    

• Cinematography: 7: I feel the film was well shot, even with a heavily action pack film, like this one.  

• Direction: 7: Alan Taylor is know for directing HBO television show like Game of Thrones, The Sopranos, and Rome. I think he made a good jump to big screen as an director. I know there has been a lot complaints among my friends that the film was to short. I kind of agree that it seem like a short two hours. I also think that the enjoyment of the film created a longing for a longer film.                  

• Editing: 6: I think the "fast paced film" was because of the editing. This film deals with multiple different realms and jumping from one to another. I feel like there to much "Meanwhile..." moments in the film     

• Screenplay: 6: I felt that some story items were weak. Malekith was there just the full the bad guy roll, he didn't really have a motive. The love triangle between Thor, Sif, and Jane could have been portrayed better. The one evil eye, "so you are the Earth girl" look wasn't enough. We saw true loyalty and friendship form Sif but the story didn't really let that developed romantically.  

• Sound and Music: 6: Fitting.

• VFX: 8: It was great to see more of Asgard, it felt more living than before. I heard this film as being described as Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings. Visually I see where they are coming from.   

Overall: 7: I really enjoyed this film and I think most of the fan of Marvel will as well. Personally I think it works as a stand alone action film, sci-fi, and fantasy. Oh Look for a great cameo            

Review: The Wolverine

IMDb

Title: The Wolverine  
Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox
Director: James Mangold
Writer(s):  Mark Bomback (screenplay), Scott Frank (screenplay)
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Tao Okamoto, Rila Fukushima
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence, some sexuality and language
Running Time: 126 min
Synopsis: Summoned to Japan by an old acquaintance, Wolverine becomes embroiled in a conflict that forces him to confront his own demons.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 66% "Fresh", Top Critics: 61% "Fresh", Audience: 779% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 60 out of 100, Users: 7.3 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 59 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Characters based off Marvel Comic character created by Roy Thomas, Len Wein, and John Romita, Sr.  

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: Wolverine frenzy   

• Comedy Elements: Some cleaver banter    

• Dramatic Elements: This film tried maybe a bit to hard..     

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: Not a mutant fest, but there is good amount of comic book logic.     

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: Hugh Jackman has set the tone to how Wolverine should be played. He was perfectly cast as Wolverine way back in X-men. I'm glad to see him back. Other actors did a decent job for being no-names.          

• Art Direction: 7: For me I loved Japan as a backdrop. I'm glad they spent the money to film in Japan.    

• Cinematography: 6: The action sequence were a bit to "shaky-cam" for my tastes. The train sequence was cool even though some of the gags were scene before in other films. 

• Direction: 6: For an action film, in parts it felt kind of slow. Even thought dramatic scenes in most action films are an oxymoron, this one handled them pretty well.             

• Editing: 6: I think the editing wasn't bad for an action film, but not remembered either.        

• Screenplay: 7: I felt they handled the story really well. I like the contrast between Logan without powers vs the fury with powers. 

• Sound and Music: 6: Fitting.

• VFX: 8: Well Done for the budget.      

Overall: 6.5: I think for the average film fan this film might be a pass but for a X-men fan it might lean toward the must see...especially for the "easter egg" scene during the credits.           

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

IMDb

Title: Star Trek Into Darkness  
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writer(s):  Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, and Benedict Cumberbatch
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Running Time: 132 min
Synopsis: After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 86% "Fresh", Top Critics: 80% "Fresh", Audience: 89% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 73 out of 100, Users: 7.8 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 74 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Characters based off of television show Star Trek The Original Series, created by Gene Roddenberry. 

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: Oh Yeah....Boom, there was another explosion. If you like action film then this might be up your ally.     

• Comedy Elements: The majority of the jokes in this film are place their for avid Star Trek fan. "Damn it Jim I'm a doctor, not a movie reviewer"    

• Dramatic Elements: This film hints at it to a degree with the revenge tone of the film.     

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: There was good 1,400 effect shots. With an action space movie what do you expect?    

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 7: The acting chops carried over from the first film but there is one guy that everyone will be talking about and that is Benedict Cumberbatch. I personally haven't seen an episode of Sherlock so I can't compare performances, but he did a great job in this film. I believe a major selling point for an actor is how well they can perform as a villain.              

• Art Direction: 6: I personally don't like a shiney future. I'm more of a fan of a "lived" in future like that of Star Wars.  

• Cinematography: 8: I think the camera choice allowed for the action to develop. I also like some of the camera transitions that brought the atmosphere that we "the viewer" was in space. Another thing I like was the flow of the film. I felt like I was walking along side the actors.  

• Direction: 8: The film was very well paced for most part. I think there was some story flaws near the beginning that slowed it down a bit.           

• Editing: 7: That flow I talked about earlier also was reflected in the editing, which was very nice.      

• Screenplay: 7: The characters in Star Trek have a good 30 years of development, so fans of Star Trek are going to look for those quirks...When they see them or hear them in the case of a catch phrase, they will think, "That's Kirk I know and love" This film like its predecessor dose a great job of inserting those classic "Star Trek" elements. As far as the story goes I personally thing the events that happen near the beginning could have played out slightly different, because I felt it was a little on "beating around the bush" side. Basically I was thinking the entire time in my head, this should happen or will happen, or I will be mad.

• Sound and Music: 7: I think the score was classic Star Trek and was very well done.       

• VFX: 9: I willing to be this film is among the top film in visual effect category at the Oscars.      

Overall: 7.5: I feel overall this film was very exciting and entertaining, I think even more so for a Star Trek fan. I recommend it and it might very well be worth watching it a couple of times.