Reel Review: Star Trek, into brilliance.

Having a Star Trek film get so highly criticized  has been a double-edged sword. so I'm going to do this review in two parts.

Prometheus: Burning questions, burning desire.

I suppose this is as good as any a film to reel me back into using this blog...

MASSIVE SPOILERS AND DISCUSSION AHEAD

Dear reader, be you fictional or fickle,  I must start by saying that you should feel free to comment at the bottom. In fact, I encourage it! if you think I'm dead wrong, don't just make faces at your screen. whip out your fastest typing fingers and tell me what you think. I really want to know. I've been sitting on this for three weeks, avoiding ALL spoilers (deceptively challenging) and now 'tis time to catch up.

Where to begin.

Movie Musing Sucker Punch

Of all the Zach Snyder films I’ve seen to date, I think Sucker Punch ranks in the top slot.
One must assume going in, however, that the plot will be thin or convoluted, the beauties be scantily clad, the visuals stunning, and the ending scene bordering on unbearably preachy; And as always these things hold true to some degree. “Watchmen” did it with about 85 % faithful respect to the original text, and “300” was a very pretty animating of Frank Miller’s bloody take on the greek history. But those films, to me, were lessened in quality by Snyder’s attempts to put his own stamp on someone else’s story.

REWIND: Plunkett & Macleane

Every once in awhile, I'll stumble across a movie that catches my eye simply by the plot or the actor combination; this one managed to do both, and so I'll kick off a new branch of reviews called "Rewind", namely movies that are over a decade old that I want to recommend because most likely you've never heard of 'em.

Plunkett and Macleane is a film that tries to be a handful of things. I'll call its category, "neoclassical-punk", as it has undertones of a modern action film while also being a period piece. Other films that have a feel such as this might include the recent "Sherlock Holmes" film, the "Marie Antoinette" awhile back, or Baz Luhrman's "Romeo&Juliet". Basically, the category is any sort of classical-era film that seems to have late-20th-century action style and music underscoring that still keeps the feel of the piece but brings it to a vibrant, loud-rock life with its energy and soundtrack.

The story, in essence, is about two Englishmen, a brilliant thief and a penniless gentleman, who manage to escape their condemed fates, build a new and wealthy and solid reputation for themselves, and use it as a cover to steal from the rich.

First off, let's look at the casting. Johnny Lee Miller (Trainspotting, Eli Stone) is very charming as the wannabe-Gentleman, one Jamie Macleane, and it's clear to see that his prettyboy looks are the perfect tool for their activities. then there's Plunkett, played wonderfully by Robert Carlyle, a growing favorite in my book. He's got the plan and the chip on his shoulder and the streetsmart experience to continue a life of crime, and I like the energy these two leads have with each other. There's a hint of a Rosencrantz/Guildenstern in their banter, and certainly a few chuckles along the way. Liv Tyler's stereotypical breathy ingenue is played to the proper levels as a girl-with-a-taste-for-bad-boys. And you've got Alan Cumming, Ken Stott, and Michael Gambon rounding out the rest of the important characters. All in all, a treat to watch.

The film's flaws are really in the clash between action and Period, something all of these "neo-classic-punk" genre films struggle with, is that the modern-rock music sometimes completely pulls you out of the action, even if its tone fits the moment in which it's happening. In some moments, the action is a little too flashy for the period, and you quietly wonder if it would even be possible for things to go down like they do (I'm looking at you, fireworks heist) but you let it slide as the pacing is quite strong and you're thankful nothing is too dragged-out or awkward.

At other moments, the monotony of the elaborate dressing and the complicated group dances and the simplicity of travel and weaponry are perfectly executed, with a touch of grim humor as you feel for Plunkett's feeling out-of-place in this world of sneers and lordships. The heists themselves are sloppy and quick, which is entirely believable.

Regardless, the good moments and the bad moments are fairly well-balanced and overall I liked this movie. I don't feel that it's brilliant but it certainly stands in a tiny category with its brass balls swinging, unafraid and bold as the heroes it boasts of within.

Three and a Half out of Four nooses.

Movie Musing: Scott Pilgrim vs. the Adaptation

Once in awhile, a movie comes along that is nothing like what you've seen before.

I think this year, this is that movie.

Let's start with faithfulness to adaptation. Edgar Wright, known to most people as director of "Spaced" and "Shaun of the Dead", has done a fantastic job of bringing a comic book to the screen without losing any of the comic book "quirks"; In fact, this may be one of the MOST faithful CB/M adaptations I have ever seen (and being a geek I make it a point to see most all of them, regardless of quality).

Movie Musings: INCEPTION

I'll start out by admitting that it's 4:15am and I am writing this article in two parts; i'm forcing myself to take a nap, and go see this movie again, to make sure that I can find the best words possible to write a review for this film. By the time you read this I'll have mulled the movie over for about twenty-four hours. As always, no spoilers below, though a few plot points/key elements will be discussed.

Steel Yourself!

Iron Man Review(s) part II

alright, now that we got the comic book portion out of the way, on to the movie!

IRON MAN 2 (or: when superheroes take a coffee-and-donut break from saving the world)
Let me say this right here and right now: this review is mostly about the technicality, not the substance itself. The movie was decent, it continues the series faithfully, I wholeheartedly recommend you go see it, anon and soforth. Everything I have to say today is focused essentially on nitpicking.


I've had a lot of thoughts about this film over the course of the past week. While watching the film, I had a few reservations because I'd heard the Early Critic Reviews spoke of a poor film.

As a fanboy, let me tell you that those were dissuaded, for me, in the first gorramn minute or so.

Now, that being said, I do have some arguments with the film.
The movie, as a whole, is enjoyable. I think that this is a fine continuation of the series, it continues the overzealous, arrogant, playful impression of Tony Stark that RDJ has solidified into my memory as THE Tony Stark. the man who hides behind humor because he wants to be a steely as the armor he dons. Of course, good drama happens when that mask breaks, and we see Tony in way over his head this time around and that's a great thing. I think that the writers and the director have set a very clear approach and stuck to it.

I had a few nitpick problems with the film. For one thing, I was a little disappointed that so much of the movie was an Avengers set-up. Now some people argue that's what made the movie better. Personally, I enjoyed it greatly BUT felt that it was still heavy-handed and we could have been set with, say, five to ten minutes less of it. The sheer volume of it brought Samuel L. Jackson to ludicrous standings with me this time around. Sure, I believe that Nick Fury is a sarcastic bastard and humor suits him. But the writing for this film, matched with Sam's ability to Bring It, meant that Nick Fury was cheesy to a new degree. I say this disappointed me because there was a temperance to him in his little cameo last time that suggested the badass but didn't overshadow it with a slightly campy approach. Having the Captain America Shield, Thor's Hammer after the ending credits, totally cool; they were there briefly and we moved on.

Also, there was NOT enough Mickey Rourke in this film. I had hoped for so much more screen time. I blame Heath Ledger's similarly short screen time in Dark Knight for setting the bar high now in films like this to bring their best in bursts.

The storyline itself only dragged when the Avengers stuff happened and the War Machine/American Military part happened. While I understand the need to dumb it down and explain, we could have fit most of that stuff into the "I'll take it. all of them" scene and the brief scene where Rhody sees it's being taken out of his hands. that's it. Even a non-comic-book fan should be able to pick up on that stuff without it.

Sam Rockwell plays down-on-luck, sleazy guys really well. I look forward to more Justin Hammer in IM3. That being said, he conveyed it so well that I reiterate, it could have been done in a shorter amount of film reel and still had the same potency.

Scarlett Johansson was a pleasant addition to the cast in that I wasn't sure how Black Widow was going to be in this interpretation. I was pleasantly misguided in my worry, and look forward to her in the Avengers film continuing this role.

Needs more Jarvis/garage fun time. the Papa Stark stuff was nice, and "inventing" a new element was something that screamed Comic Book Approach so effectively that I am thrilled to see it happen, and in a cool way, on screen.

I suppose that my biggest argument with the film is that there was no imminent sense of urgency to it. For awhile we had the techno-virus in his bloodstream, but then that got turned around with a one-shot cure. YAAY. oh wait. there's still forty five miuntes? ho hum. what to do?

the action? great. the humor? beyond iron-clad. i just needed a bit more drama.

all in all, i give it Three Out Of Four Stars.