A Series of Genres

My buddy Devon has a daily blog and a weekly podcast at Informal Talks. Last week he posted a list of his favorite film franchises. This list gave me some inspiration to put together my own list. I'm going to showcase my favorite film franchises by separating them into genres. In this series of post I want answers the following questions for the films on my list: How entertaining was the films? Did the films, please me aesthetically? How well did the film do financially? Did the film impact / define our culture or subculture? Did the film change the world of filmmaking? I'm going to try my best to make this series a weekly occurrence, posting sometime mid week. Each week I will tackle a different genre naming my favorite films and movie franchises within said genre. This week I'm going to tackle the action genre. 

Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

IMDb

Title: Guardians of the Galaxy
Distributor: Marvel Studios (Disney)
Director: James Gunn
Writer(s): James Gunn (written) and Nicole Perlman (written)
Starring: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, and Karen Gillan
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action, and for some language.
Running Time: 121 min
Synopsis:After stealing a mysterious orb in the far reaches of outer space, Peter Quill, a half human/half alien is now the main target of a manhunt led by the villain known as Ronan the Accuser. To help fight Ronan and his team and save the galaxy from his power, Quill creates a team known as the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' to save the world.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 92% "Fresh", Top Critics: 87% "Fresh", Audience: 96% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 76 out of 100, Users: 9.2 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 76 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on comic the book series created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning.

Entertaining Value

• Action Elements: Enough action to keep your action-philes out there excited.

• Comedy Elements: A lot of one-liners that will crack you up.

• Dramatic Elements:  There is a hint of drama here and there. This film is action-comedy with a lot of sci-fi elements.

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: Its based on a comic book, but its not your typical comic book film. Its more of an action-adventure in space.

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 8: Seeing some of the names on the cast list I was a bit concerned to say the least, names like Dave Bautista and Vin Diesel. Vin Diesel voices a nine foot tall tree like alien that only has one repeated line of dialogue, "I'Am Groot" Dave Bautista known for his "professional wrestling" plays Drax, the Destroyer, who is a very muscular barbaric alien hell bent on getting revenge on those who killed his family. These non- thespian actors were cast for appropriate roles, that was a giant step in the right direction. Lets move onto the talent then, Chris Pratt is known for his comedic roles primarily, Park and Recreation does a great job as Peter Quill aka Starlord. I like the fact that Pratt based his character off Late 70's early 80's action-adventure heroes like Han Solo and Marty McFly. Zoe Saldana is your go to gal for any leading female role in a Sci-fi film. Bradley Cooper voices Rocket, which was a perfect choice. Michael Rooker known for his role in The Walking Dead as Merle Dixon play the same basic role in this film as Yondu Udonta. There are a lot of great actors rounding out the cast: Lee Pace as Ronan, Karen Gillan as Nebula, John C. Reilly as Corpsman Day, Glenn Close as Nova Prime, Benicio del Toro as The Collector.

• Art Direction: 9: The thing I liked the most about the art direction was each location had a unique feeling. The Xandarian planet ruled by the Nova Corp has a shiny future feeling to it, while "Knowhere" Had a rustic slums feeling. I like it when films have many different environments with vastly aesthetic differences.

• Cinematography: 8: The action in the film was well shot. I liked how the film brought me along for the ride without making me feel sick

• Direction: 9: James Gunn is more known for his writing, penning screenplays like, Scooby-Doo, Dawn of the Dead (2004), and Slither. Guardians of the Galaxy wan't Gunn's first time in the director's chair but it's his first time with a film of this magnitude, and he kills it.

• Editing: 8: The pacing was good

• Screenplay: 8: I think you could take this story out of the MCU and it could stand alone as a great space-action-adventure. I like that the story was basically a group of misfits turning into epic heroes. It was nice that every character had a significant back-story. I also liked that the main protagonist was kind of a bumbling idiot who showcase heroism only when the galaxy, which he lives in, is threatened.

• Sound and Music: 9: The soundtrack of the film is the soundtrack that plays in the main protagonist, Peter Quill, head/ Walkman. Having this as the soundtrack brings us, the audience, into the film. It also gives an outlook on what's going on in Peter's head.

• VFX: 10: Two major notes on the VFX: Rocket and Groot. The filmmaker did an amazing job giving these two character a wide range of emotions, especially with Groot, who doesn't say much.

Overall: 8.5: I recommended this film for a great summer action-adventure. This is a film I would see a few times in theaters, if I had the funds to do so. 

Where Has The Plot Gone?

It's been a while since I wrote what's on my mind, especially movie related subjects. I want to talk about movie plots and how is spending quite a bit of time NOT focused on them. The no-focused plot problem has been happening for a long while now, but for me personally it has been more noticeable lately. We are currently in summer movie season, which means a slew of big budgeted blockbusters. These types of films suffer the most from this plot problem, here's why: Mr CEO Producer at Big Film Studio 6 wants to make a crap ton of money. He thinks to himself, whats hot right now that I can take to the bank. He realizes comic book movies, teen fiction novels, and toys turned cartoon series. He then calls up his three best friends who happen to be a filmmaker. The first filmmaker is a geek or nerd that makes geek or nerd movies so he's handed a script to the lasted comic book movie. The CEO asks him to spearhead the first movie in a ten picture cinematic universe, here's a crap tone of money make me proud. The second filmmaker isn't as well know to mainstream Hollywood, but has made some decent film in the past. The CEO asks this guy, "Do you want to swim in gold coins like Scrooge McDuck? Well, here's the latest seven part teen fiction novels that we just acquired the movie rights for. The third guy is known for making "guy movies" The CEO calls him up and says, "Hey bro we just got the rights to Toy's INC action figure line. I loved the cartoon as a kid now makes me love the live action version" Respectively each of the three guys create their fun summer blockbuster that make tons of money. Once this happen The CEO calls the three guys up and ask one question "You ready for a sequel?" Is this really that bad of thinking? Not quite. From a business model it works, but from an artist standpoint its bad news. Being a graphics guy I'm okay with the filmmakers spending a good amount of their budget on visual effect. I'm even okay with the filmmakers being detail oriented and hiring on specialized craftsmen to craft sets and costumes. I'm okay with filmmakers experimenting or expanding upon the tech side of filmmaking. All these things take a lot of time and money to execute. Writing a story takes time, but very little money compared to they other thing mention. Ideally, there will only be one guys or gal that the studio will have to pay plus, maybe one person who created the source material if the script is adapted from someone else work. The key word here is "One" Now days it seems there's at least four or five people penning screenplays, which I believe affects the plot, here's why: Sam the screenwriter writes a decent screenplay but he thinks it need improvements on the story. He gives it Steve the storyteller to read and improve upon. Steve gives his feedback and returns the script. Sam thinks Steve's advice was great and change the script. Since the script was changed significantly with Steve's idea's Sam decides to credit Steve with the story. Sam and Steve decide to submit their screenplay to Big Film Studio 6. The studio likes the screenplay for the most part, but they want their studio guys to give it a glance. Tom changes the tone of the film. Dan tweaks the dialogue and Andy add some more action, while Carl adds a more comedy element. These four in-house studio writers have added to the screenplay so they deserve credit as writers as well. Do you see the problem? I personally think Mr. CEO Producer is suppressing the creative freedom of his filmmaker to play it safe because he knows that his type of film will make money but a movie with plot may not. What do you guys think about this problem? For another plot related post, click here.

Review: 22 Jump Street

IMDb

Title: 22 Jump Street
Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox
Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
Writer(s): Michael Bacall (screenplay), Oren Uziel (screenplay),Rodney Rothman (screenplay), Michael Bacall (story), Jonah Hill (story) 
Starring: Channing Tatum, Jonah Hill, Ice Cube
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language throughout, sexual content, drug material, brief nudity and some
Running Time: 112 min
Synopsis: After making their way through high school (twice), big changes are in store for officers Schmidt and Jenko when they go deep undercover at a local college.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 83% "Fresh", Top Critics: 90% "Fresh", Audience: 89% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 71 out of 100, Users: 7.4 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 68 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on characters and concepts from 21 Jump Street television show.  

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This is an action comedy, but most of the action is a long gag / slapstick.

• Comedy Elements: One of the better comedic timed films, I have seen in a long time

• Dramatic Elements:  The "drama" in this film has a comedic turn.

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: None.

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 8: I'm giving this film an eight not because the actors are great thespians but they gave great comedic performances. Jonah Hill is really the only one that has some thespian credibility with his Oscar nominations and wins, but personally he's a bit of a hit or miss especially in comedic roles. Channing Tatum on the other hand, has only really shown promise in comedies. In other films he was okay at best, if not terrible. In this film, Channing Tatum kills it, some may even say he "steals the show."  Ice Cube did a good job being Ice Cube. There were a lot of great one liners, that are very quotable. The "bros" will be quoting this movie for a while. Its up there with The Hangover on quotable level among the "bros." I also like the guest / cameo appearance in the film.

• Art Direction: 7: I got the classic movie version of college. From a tone perspective, it was fun to see a modern Animal House type of thing going on visually.

• Cinematography: 7: The action in the film was well shot.

• Direction: 8: Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are on fire right now. They are know for the Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs films, The Lego Movie, and The Jump Street films. I like how they work in little gags that are more or less, nods and winks at the audience, mostly in the form of pop-culture reference.

• Editing: 7: The film's pacing was good. There may have been a few minor slow parts, but I might be counting the parts I wasn't laughing as "slow."

• Screenplay: 6: There were quite a few moments of breaking the fourth wall, meaning they know they are in a movie. They break the fourth wall as a gag by saying something along the lines of, "It the same movie" The "same thing" running gag runs its course pretty quickly, or at least for me anyways. I do like the other breaking the fourth wall gags, especially the end credit scenes. I also have to say it has a "cookie cutter" type of story, but the laughs make up for the bad story.  

• Sound and Music: 8: The music was fitting for a "bromance" buddy cop comedy film.   

• VFX: 7:  Not much to say, Im guessing there was more VFX on the screen then noticed. I mean there's a good amount of explosions, not quite as much as a Micheal Bay film, but a good amount.   

Overall: 7.5: I recommended this film for a great summer comedy. I suggest grabbing one of your good friends and having a good laugh.  

Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

IMDb

Title: X-Men: Days of Future Past
Distributor: Twentieth Century Fox
Director: Bryan Singer
Writer(s):  Simon Kinberg (screenplay), Jane Goldman (story), Simon Kinberg (story), Matthew Vaughn(story) 
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender, Ian McKellen, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Daniel Cudmore, Bingbing Fan, Adan Canto, Booboo Stewart, Lucas Till, and Evan Jonigkeit
MPAA Rating: Rated PG- 13 for sequences of intense sci-fi violence and action, some suggestive material, nudity and language.
Running Time: 131 min
Synopsis: The X-Men send Wolverine to the past in a desperate effort to change history and prevent an event that results in doom for both humans and mutants.

What Others Are Saying?

Rotten Tomatoes: T-Meter: 90% "Fresh", Top Critics: 98% "Fresh", Audience: 95% "Like It"
Metacritic: Critics: 74 out of 100, Users: 9.1 out of 10
MRQE Metric: 74 out of 100

My Review

Source Material: Based on characters and story-arcs from X-men comic created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby . 

Entertaining Value:

• Action Elements: This film had a lot different type of action scenes that worked very well.   

• Comedy Elements: The comedy breaks the tension at the perfect moments.       

• Dramatic Elements:  Some of the best dramatic scenes in comic book movie.        

• Sci-Fi / Fantasy Elements: This film has comic book fantasy elements, but it sprinkles in some good time travel elements as well.       

Cinematic Value:

• Acting and Dialogue: 9: Looking at this cast list one of your first thoughts might be, "Damn there are a lot of characters in this film" You would be mistaken. I believe they had a perfect balanced between the old guys (Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry, ect.) the new guys (James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, ect.) and the even newer guys ( Evan Peters, Peter Dinklage, Omar Sy, ect) Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen have great chemistry as longtime friends, there off screen friendship may have helped with that. James McAvoy could very well get a nomination for his acting in this role. It was nice seeing Xavier, who is well known as being very hopeful, be at his all time low. Xavier at the beginning of this film is more or less a drug addict. Evan Peters was the biggest scene stealer ever. Peter Dinklage is great. I like the fact that the filmmakers filled the parts with good actors. Bolivar Trask isn't traditionally a "dwarf" but who cares Dinklage does a great job, and they don't mention he's a "dwarf" at all in the film.       

• Art Direction: 9: Before you start barking up the wrong tree, saying things like, "Quicksliver costume is garbage" Even though I would have agreed with before seeing the film. In the film the costume makes sense. Yes its not your typical Green/ Blue with white lightning bolt but it makes  sense in the film trust me on this one. This film takes place primarily in the 70's so a lot of the art and costumes have that vibe except when the film shifts to the future.          

• Cinematography: 8: I think it was well shot. There were a good amount of dramatic scenes that just took the cake.            

• Direction: 9: I'm glad to have Bryan Singer back on this film. I believe the X-men franchises is his baby. It was good to bring back Singer's style from the old X-man film while at the same time respecting Matthew Vaughn's work on X-Men: First Class. Singer did a nice job "fixing" all of the continuity problems from X3, Origins, and First Class.   

• Editing: 8: I think they did a great job handling the time traveling aspects in this film. It was nice seeing a compare and contrast element in the film.  

• Screenplay: 9: Where to start. I really liked the story. Do I have issues with the adaptation from the comic books, yes, but the story we got on screen was great. I mentioned the compare and contrast elements briefly above, I believe the story expands on that even more so. Xavier and Magneto are enemies, primarily because they have different views on how to handle mutants. There's a really awesome scene that showcase that very conflict between them. Compared that to their future versions, they are old friends that are willing to sacrifice each others lives to save their kind, mutants. It's kind of inserting as well that Trask is a guy who is a "dwarf." From a larger scope that makes him a "mutant" He's not a mutant as defined in the X-Men universe but he's not "normal" either. Compared to the guy, okay with the idea of eliminating the "mutant issue," even though he admires them.                

• Sound and Music: 8: Mixture of the old and new I like it. Some of the music brings the humor out.  

• VFX: 9: Not as par as Godzilla, but it was very well done.           

Overall: 9: I think die hard comic book fan might be a lit fussy on how they handled some things but I think they can get over it. Movies and Books are two different things. I had a really good time in this film and I think you will too.

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.