manuscriptna Reviews

Tomorrowland (2015)

Hope and Half-baked

[21 May 2015]

Tomorrowland was fun to watch, for the first hour. It had promised extremely imaginative ideas, creative inventions, and the wonder of it all. In the first hour, all of those were there, but it all fell flat in the second half. Wonder and excitement were exchanged for political/environmental intrigue and concern, That was certainly something we've seen a lot before. I came to see something new, ingenious, and inspiring. What I saw were some really nifty gadgets and ideas leading up to a possibly huge one, then all I got was environmental warnings and action with a few explosions. But I digress on that until later.

The acting was fairly good! George Clooney did quite well, as expected, Hugh Laurie was fantastic though not very memorable. Raffey Cassidy did decently, I enjoyed her calm and collected role. Britt Robertson started out promising, but her character devolved as the film sped on. Keegan-Michael Key's appearance was unexpected, but comical indeed. I laughed as I heard the Wookiee call in the background of his action scene (it's worth listening for).

Speaking of humor, Bird gave it a good successful attempt in the first half. However, for me, the funniest moment may not have been intentional, but I believe it was. After Frank (Clooney) and Casey (Robertson) meet up with Athena (Cassidy), all three are in the vehicle. Athena, looking as if she is 12, is the one driving, with the teenage Casey in the middle and the middle-aged Frank in the passenger seat. The scene shows this for at least 10 seconds without dialogue, and I couldn't help but laugh. From this point on, though, humor didn't break through as in the first half.

--SPOILER ALERT-- From here until the concluding statement, I'll be discussing plot details that would likely ruin the film's surprises for you. You have been warned.

The Eiffel Tower plays an unexpected role in the film, one that I'm glad I didn't notice occur in the trailer. When the three travelers need to return to Tomorrowland, most gates have been shut. One option is left open to them, however, and that is where the Tower comes in. A memorial exhibit to inventors rests atop the Tower, and it leads to a hidden secret: a rocket buried underneath. The Tower splits apart into a launch pad, and they blast off in the rocket. This whole sequence seemed very National Treasure-ish, and almost unnecessary. The only reason I support it, sans the over-the-top theatrics, is that it does something very important to the topic of the film. It honors past inventors. The rest of the film is all about the future, unnamed newcomers, what could be. But they took at least a little bit of time honoring those who got us to where we are. And that, I applaud, even if it were only a few minutes of the total screen time.

The ending plot, however, was half-baked. It could have used more pre-production scrutiny, and some post- as well. For example, Casey's relationship with her father was hardly there, mostly implied. She looked to him as great inspiration, but we saw hardly any of that. And where was her mother? Her father wore a wedding ring, but I don't remember any explanation. Also, near the end of the film, wind blows her father's cap off her head, and it never appears again, despite its importance to her. This might be because she later brought her father to Tomorrowland, and had him in the flesh, rather than an extension of him, but still. Make that hat scene useful.

Governor Nicks' demise was also not thought through as well. When Athena self-destructs, everyone was fully aware it was going to happen, and where it was going to happen. The Monitor above them all is rocked with an explosion, and begins to plummet. Suddenly, everyone must scramble to get away, even though they knew this was coming. Even if the whole Monitor wasn't going to fall, debris from the explosion would. The reason they didn't have Casey get out of the way like any sensible person who knew this would be crashing down on them in a few minutes if they didn't, is this: Nicks was trapped down there, and having Casey leave the premises prematurely would make his death look far too cold-hearted. They would be leaving him there knowing he would die, and not help him. But if she's running for her life, with seconds to spare, that suddenly makes it okay to leave the villain behind. They could have come up with a far better demise, one that made more sense at least. And how did she have enough time to get clear anyway? The whole platform was crushed by that thing, and she didn't start running until it had fallen for 5 seconds. But I digress once more.

--END SPOILER ALERT--

Given Brad Bird's directorial career, this isn't a highlight of his. It was quite imaginative, but needed a lot more development in the second half. It devolved from an inspiring showcase of creative ideas and futuristic inventions to environmental concern and flying punches. We've seen the latter two a lot already, I wish their focus was fully set on tomorrow, and not themes we've seen explored a thousand times already.

When it comes to parental guidance on this film, there are some minimally violent scenes, sans blood and disturbing sights. A few instances of language appear, though. Nothing sexually inappropriate occurs or is hinted at.

*I was given early access to see the film by Walt Disney Studios. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions here are my own.*

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Rocket Raccoon and co. are worth watching.

[8/10 · 6 August 2014]

Here arrives the latest Marvel installment. Not the next sequel, prequel, or tie-in, but a new team. One part Terran, four parts alien. People have called this a filler story, but it's actually much more. It's a key move in the direction of Marvel's Phase 3, and it's a heck of a ride, mistakes notwithstanding.

James Gunn had the tough task of introducing all 5 characters well enough, but still leaving screen time for plenty of spacey action. While he did so, he altered some origin story details, and this bothered me. Being a Rocket Raccoon fan, I have read his original appearances. He wasn't precisely "experimented on," and this may end up cheapening his story in the Marvel film universe. But it could be possible he doesn't remember exactly what happened, and assumes. Considering this, they might be perfectly in line, which I'm hoping for, but it's looking grim.

Old Ranger Rocket was designed and voiced wonderfully. I knew going in he would be my favorite character, but they captured him just right, apart from his origin. In the coming film, I hope they heavily feature the other guardians also, notably Drax. I never felt Drax or Gamora's characters shine through, except when they were exploited for humor. I didn't feel much for their losses, cheer them on when they got the upper hand, etc.

Groot was likewise amazing. His balance between gentle giant and brute warrior was spot-on. :SPOILER: I loved everything about him, until Gunn made a Hollywood-like move with his last words, "We are Groot". Why not throw away years of history and suddenly add a fourth word to his vocabulary? Because it needed to be a tender moment? The comics achieved that quite a lot without compromising the character. :END SPOILER: This was my biggest disappointment with the film.

Starlord, Peter Quill, was the most complicated character of the film, but a bit less rounded. He's an 80's-loving, artifact-thieving, and wise-cracking momma's boy. We see his fun side, and his tender side, but I don't think his motivations were fully expressed. They're there, but could be deeper. While I enjoyed Chris Pratt's portrayal, I think it could have used a bit more cooking.

Now for the plot. A fun-loving outlaw steals a valuable object, high-up baddies pursue him doggedly, and he must side with the law to save the galaxy. The way this plays out, and how they end up doing the saving, seemed very nearly clichéd and Hollywood-like to me. While it was intense, that's what I see in it.

The action and tactical genius exhibited by the group was highly entertaining, Rocket of course being the mastermind behind most of it. If you're looking for intense fight scenes set to awesome 80's rock and roll, this delivers right to your door.

As a note before I finish, there's a lot of good with this film, and I'm mostly highlighting the bad. Go see it for yourself, because I don't want to spoil much, and I'd have to in order to show you just how good. Trust me in that Marvel continues to do humor well, also. Don't let the heavy critique worry you. If you plan to see it, and I recommend that you do, know there is some mild language and intense scenes of violence. Here ends the critical part of my review.

:SPOILERS AHEAD:

I would like to discuss the implications of this film in the future of the Marvel film universe. Guardians of the Galaxy takes place far from Earth, but there are a few tethers to the story. First, there's Peter Quill, who originates from there. Second, this isn't the first time we've seen The Collector. He appears to be collecting the Infinity Stones, which appeared in Captain America: The First Avenger, then in Thor 2. This makes 3 of the 6 found. And a third tether is of course Thanos, who appeared briefly at the end of The Avengers.

Now, I will make a few predictions here. Phase One of the Marvel film saga led all the way up to The Avengers. So we can safely say the climax of that phase was the Chitauri invasion led by Loki. Phase Two is still being released, but with the Guardians in theaters, the only film we have to wait for now is the climax, Avengers: Age of Ultron. This will conclude the phase, and very likely change the game for the future, just like several of the films in this round. Phase Three begins with Ant- Man, immediately bringing in a new character, instead of waiting until the end like in this phase. I believe this phase will be a longer one than the last two, since three stones have yet to be discovered.

Now, if the first big threat was Loki leading an alien fleet against New York, and the second is Ultron, which we'll see very soon, what could follow these? Only Thanos, the biggest baddie of them all. And since both the Avengers and the Guardians have a huge beef with him, it stands to reason that the crossover rumors are going to be true after all, with even more possible attendees. It's going to be a huge throw-down. And I can't wait to see Rocket in the middle of it all.

*I was given early access to see the film by Walt Disney Studios. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions here are my own.*

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Great action, hilarious comedy, and character improvement make this a hit

[8/10 · 6 November 2013]

Thor: The Dark World is, in short, a hit. With a new and different threat, the battle takes place behind the lines, in wastelands, and on metropolis Earth, rather than the cold world and small town scene of the first film. Trickery, subtlety, and cunning take the place of brute force this time, and it's a good direction to take.

The characters, for the large part now established, were furthered well. Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) was played well, but could have spoken up a great deal more near the end. It should have been more shocking when he finally spoke English, in fact I don't recall the exact moment he started.

The action in this film was great, but skipped a few beats at times, which is forgivable this time with Loki's interchanges with Thor. Marvel did meet my expectations with intermittent comedy, once again. This sequel was full of it, and each time it was written and performed very well, and got a laugh from the whole audience.

The movie is family-friendly except for fantasy violence, two moments of direct violence, partial nudity (a character is shown in public on television, but is thankfully censored), and less worrying details seen here. See it in 3D, see it in 2D, either works. 3D doesn't stand out, for better or worse. All in all, Thor: The Dark World is worth seeing in cinemas.

P.S. Stay after all the credits roll, and you'll be doubly rewarded.

I was given early access to see the film by Walt Disney Studious. I was not required to write a positive review, and the opinions here are my own.

Planes (2013)

Cars film composite, with a few redeeming elements

[9 August 2013]

It doesn't take very long to notice that Planes is a watered-down film. All you need to see is the logo to realize there isn't much to see that's new. A ridiculed dark horse makes his way to the big leagues, realizes he must change to continue the course, and with the help of his friends shows everyone who's the real winner. I'm beginning to wonder if a non-Pixar animated studio will be capable of releasing anything different for a few years (save for the HTTYD and CWACOM sequels).

The similarities, or copies, of ideas in the Cars films were more annoying than engaging, because they didn't often develop past what Pixar did. There are only a few good reasons to see this film, and here is one: watch it to find and list all the references to concepts in Cars (such as a fuel aficionado).

There is one concept that I enjoyed seeing developed, only because Cars 2 showed such a limited scope. This concept is travel, seeing the world, beautiful views and different cultures. Because the race is all around the world, you get to see many, many places, and the vehicles that live there. My absolute favorite was the German bar, so watch for it if you choose to view Planes.

The dialogue was mostly geared towards children, with a few exceptions, and didn't have the dual charm (children and adults) that Pixar has mastered. Still, I laughed on occasion, and I've seen more embarrassing scripts.

The animation was exactly what I expected. Slightly less precise than Cars 2, but only slightly. Where the movie excelled the most, in my opinion, was in the camera angles. They were an absolute treat throughout, despite it being an animated film. The 3D was good, but didn't have any scenes where it stood out.

Here is one more good reason to see Planes: Dane Cook. Throughout the feature, his voice acting stood out as quite a talent to watch for in the future. As a side note, I didn't appreciate the John Ratzenberger cameo, as this wasn't a Pixar film, and he already has a character in the universe. Take it how you will.

The only surprise that came to me was the "ride into the sunset" moment. I wasn't expecting a bold change, but it still happened. What came after the credits cleared it up, but didn't make me feel better. Planes: Fire and Rescue is a full-length sequel being planned with the same screenwriter. I'm more than a little disappointed they already approved it.

In conclusion, this movie is great for kids, but adults can busy themselves counting the "rip-offs". See Planes for the beautiful camera angles, vehicular takes on cultures and landmarks, and Dane Cook, but expect little else to impress.

Man of Steel (2013)

A unique treat!

[14 June 2013]

To start, watch out for the first period of the film, set on Krypton. It's full of sci-fi and comic eye-candy.

It was great that Christopher Nolan chose a darker hero for his superhero debut. Given that he'd been directing such-themed movies (Memento, The Following, Inception), wouldn't it follow that the Man of Steel himself would take on a darker tone? While in a few ways it did, Zack Snyder's fantastic vision (as per usual) and Zimmer's cold, bright score helped breathe a different life into DC Comics' newest film feature.

While I'm familiar with only some films (and none of the comics) with Superman, I will say I enjoyed this one most. It is a wonderful, emotionally-involved origin story that leads you through the development of this Man of Steel quite well. Henry Cavill plays an extraordinary man learning what it means to be a hero. I appreciated seeing his normal human attitude shine through. After all, he grew up knowing no other way to act.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane didn't fit as I hoped, though she did fair. The Daily Planet group did well, but were slightly off-putting. I'm hoping they do more in future films, if they appear. Michael Shannon's was my favorite performance: a near-emotionless (yet obsessed) general with a greater good in mind, and nothing will stay in his way. The climax of the story was just as it should have been.

Here are a few ways Nolan's darker presence have seeped in. Krypton is seen as a plague, destroying to survive, but I won't go further into that. The threats in Man of Steel are very real, and have dire effects. This isn't Avengers. People die, destruction reigns. That said, the violence isn't blatant, but does happen. On that note, there is some language and frightening/intense scenes, but nothing more to worry about. I highly appreciate the lack of inappropriate material in this film.

In conclusion, Man of Steel has not let much in the past explicitly define it. A unique costume, altered chronology, real terror and threats, character accuracy and development, and more are all defined by this film more than the previous ones (or other superhero films). I recommend it to all fans and newcomers.

Now You See Me (I) (2013)

Magic and Character development were lacking, but surprises entertained

[20 May 2013]

It is very important to realize that this movie must not be spoiled. I will not be discussing anything not shown in the trailers, and I ask you not to go looking for such secrets online, but only by watching it yourself. This movie is designed to entertain, and to a degree it does just that.

I haven't seen many of Leterrier's films, but I enjoyed this about as much as The Incredible Hulk, but more than Clash of the Titans. There were still disappointments. Magic movies have been a great interest of mine, and from the trailer I had to wonder, does Michael Caine + woman in a tank = The Prestige? Truthfully, the similarities stopped there, including magic's screen time.

Despite magic taking up most of the trailers, it was too scarce in the film itself. I wanted more magic. I know that doing so would take screen time from Ruffalo, but he wasn't the best of the bunch. In fact, they were Freeman, Caine, and Laurent, respectively.

The screen writing didn't allow for many to develop character well. The Four Horsemen were usually smooth-talking brick walls. And was that Dave Franco I saw? He had no screen time! (except for brief fancy dodging falling fighting)

These character holes would be acceptable if the movie were a large show. But as mentioned before, magic only came in smaller pieces, when at all. Some were amazing, some were old already, and some were hilarious.

It seems like I didn't appreciate the movie much, but I could only talk about what I didn't like. The rest, the secrets, I loved but can't talk about. Suffice it to say that many surprises are in store, and they're worth watching the movie for. That said, it's best to go in without guessing and predicting, because seeing the many reveals is where most of the entertainment lies. Don't spoil it for yourself.

This is a film some would be happier seeing in theatres, but if you don't think you'd spend ticket money for this, you'd probably regret it, so wait for DVD.

As a warning, there is a suggestive/inappropriate scene near the beginning that ends up going nowhere, but children's eyes should be turned aside. Also, there's a moment in a Mardi Gras parade that needs to be avoided, and minor language throughout. I'd recommend this movie for 17+, not only for these, but for the understanding of the secret material I can't bring up.

Wreck-It Ralph (2012)

A wonderful, nostalgic, and artful cinematic experience~

[9/10 · 2 November 2012]

It's all fun and games at Litwak's Fun Center, until someone gets hurt. While this cliché'd line seems to reflect the simple plot in most movies (while the moral outcome does, too), the setting makes Wreck-it Ralph a wonderful, refreshing, and unique pleasure. Inside a family arcade, all the game characters (both old and new) are real, and travel among the other games when the doors have locked. Ralph, from Fix-it Felix Jr., desperately wished to be a good guy, and be rewarded, so he sets off in search of a medal. By doing this, he sets off a chain of events that puts multiple games at risk, and unveils a hidden threat.

Disney has made this film equally accessible by both parents and children, and I find that wondrous. At times, Vanellope sounded quite mature, and at others, just like a tod. Soon, kids will squeal in excitement when they find a Fix-it Felix Jr. game, along with other last-gen arcade delights. In this way, the film has rendered itself timeless, if only in that small way. Although it doesn't feature many of the games themselves, you are able to see many characters, including retired ones.

Being inside a game world gave the artists a great deal of freedom, but they didn't waste it. At every new turn, another extremely creative point would grab your attention, and I'm sure I missed many (which would enhance a second viewing). Another big enhancement is the 3D atmosphere. I doubted I would ever say this, but I urge you to see this in 3D, or turn around and go home. Because of all the pixel-related artwork, and 3D modeling, it is natural to have such a dimension added on. It's the perfect film to have it for!

Now, for all the extra material surrounding the movie. Similar to Pixar, Disney has included an animated short right before, called "The Paperman". It doesn't feature any voice acting, but it's hilarious, and very well-made. I am sure you'll enjoy it. Second, the end credits are worth watching through, but not because there's an extra scene (there isn't one). It's only worth it for the visuals during the credits themselves, in 3D.

In conclusion, Wreck-it Ralph is family-safe, and highly enjoyable. See it in 3D as soon as you can!

Brave (2012)

Wonderful animation, disappointing "moral"

[8/10 · 22 June 2012]

With its usual charm, Pixar delivers another fine movie, save for a letdown, which I'll explain later. Their animation captures the characters and their habits perfectly, and it couldn't be done any other way. They also continue their creativity, both in script and animation (which were yet again incredible), and had the audience laughing frequently!

The characters were done very well. Merida, the princess, is a headstrong free spirit that wants to "change her fate" (of being betrothed against her will) at nearly any cost. Like her wild, flaming hair, she will not be held back. King Fergus is jovial and sympathetic, and yet a fiercely loyal husband. Queen Elinor is a lady proper, and wishes the same upon her daughter. The three sons, while never speaking, were portrayed fantastically. This shows the superior nature of Pixar: the ability to convey spectacularly through animated expression and posture.

*SPOILER ALERT* Elinor, the prim mother, undergoes change herself. Facing the uncomfortable reality of becoming a beast, she must face her unruly side. As the credits begin to roll, one is left wondering: "Which character am I to look up to?" Merida is headstrong and sometimes disobedient. Fergus is understanding and supportive, but deaf to reason in a rage. Elinor is too strict. And what role does the witch play? Does she give Merida the spell in order to help her realize her mistake, or to cause more discord? She seemed regretful of giving the former prince the spell, in hiding her status as a witch, so it seems she has people's best interest in mind. *END SPOILER* Yet again, we find cauldrons producing what seems to result in good. Still, there is no character to completely imitate. This is one of Pixar's realistic conclusions, even if it isn't terribly original. There aren't any perfectly good people. (not even the heart-throb Young Macintosh) Everyone has a bad side to go along with their good, but each person is different. We can learn from each in a different manner.

Once again, when the film ends, the audience is slightly confused by the "moral." "You can change your fate" is an odd choice for Pixar, and is a bit vague. It's not so much a moral as it is a challenge. Brave doesn't rely on other Pixar films for its reasoning or popularity. It sets itself apart, even in the purpose of the film. But is that a good thing? I don't think so, in this case. "You can change your fate" seems to encompass many "morals," including "do what your heart tells you," and as Jeremiah 17:9 says, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?"

On a lighter note, this film is perfectly suitable for kids. Because of the heavy reliance on expression, they will be able to understand more than in usual animated film dialogue. *SPOILER ALERT* The only possible inappropriate scenes are when Fergus and his fellow hunters have just descended a tower using a rope made of their shed kilts. They aren't wearing them, of course. The only other one is when the three brothers change back into boys, without clothes of course. All of this is done in good-natured Scottish humor, and isn't much to worry about. *END SPOILER*

In conclusion, the animation was superb, and the characters were fantastic. They are the reason I would go see this movie again, rather than the vague "moral" conclusion. You can learn a lot from them, but please don't "follow your heart" as a result of this movie.

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012)

First-time director has partial success

[7/10 · 4 June 2012]

Considering that this is Rupert Sander's first time directing a movie, I have to applaud his effort. How he landed some big names (Chris Hemsworth, Ian McShane, Kristen Stewart *ahem*) on his first film, I don't know. Something else that brought large attention to this curious collaboration was the good marketing. I didn't expect such a new director to have such a large impact the first time 'round. That was done well.

Despite the luring marketing, there were several problems with it once I actually saw the movie. There are various scenes in the trailers that never appeared in the movie (unless they will come in future editions or alternate endings). Also, it was falsely commended for having amazing, cinematic battle scenes. However, the reality is that the battles (save one or two) didn't live up to the cute title acronym (SWATH). They were very mediocre, compared to others from medieval movies.

While most battle scenes were not choreographed uniquely enough, the filming angles and cinematography were tasteful. Some scenes went so far as to make me beg for 3D, but there weren't enough to warrant the "upgrade." The CGI was amazing with the animals, fairies, troll, and shard soldiers. Now, the costume designers made a name for themselves. From the Huntsman to Gus, each costume was well-thought and gave each character good context.

Speaking of character, there were several golden eggs. Hemsworth, for example, proves his worth once again as the Huntsman, layering grief from his wife's death with his tired, unmotivated way of battle, until Snow White rekindles his hope in something beyond the black reign of Ravenna. Kristen Stewart's acting performance, however, closely resembles the previous sentence: long and eventually boring. She seems to tell rather than show, in many circumstances. While she certainly is pale, I believe Sanders would be better off having chosen a different heroine. (Hailee Steinfeld, who's proved wrong those concerned with her age, or, dare I say it, Saiorse Ronan, maybe? She'd look good in black hair)

While this is definitely not the style of Tim Burton, I still wouldn't recommend taking children to see this. There are several disturbing scenes near the beginning, regarding the Queen stealing beauty. There is likewise a lot of battle violence throughout the movie, and that is not good for young eyes. The Queen disrobes twice, showing only her upper back, so be warned.

Because of the 2D, and Kristen Stewart's performance, I'd say you won't miss much if you wait until it comes to DVD. It's worth it in theaters, but much, much more so at Redbox.

The Hunger Games (2012)

A really good adaption of the book!

[9/10 · 26 March 2012]

From a Christian perspective, this movie had me once again second- guessing what I would do in Katniss' position. Would I resort to killing to stay alive, and bless my district? It was hard to think about. So, I simply sat back and watched. Katniss and Peeta do most of that sort of thinking for you, but it makes you wonder about your own convictions if put into such a situation.

The filming was excellent, for the most part. Near the beginning, and a few times later on, the camera shook so much that it nauseated me, and I couldn't tell for the life of me what was happening. The broad contrast in colors from District 12 to the Capitol was really cool, and that leads me to my next observation.

The Capitol really showed off its pomp and reliance on style. There were so many crazy and absurd ways of showing off their "beauty" that it made me sick. It starts just by wanting to get noticed. Reminds one of Hollywood, eh? *chuckle*

The gore was not very prevalent, which is good. In some cases, though (such as the death near the end), the violence is implied very intensely. That really bothered me, but it's a story to make you bothered at The Capitol. It did it's job well.

Peeta and Katniss' characters were done well. Peeta didn't seem to show much depth, however, while Katniss did. Her reaction to her sister was chosen as tribute was heartbreaking. Judging from her excellent work in X-Men: First Class, she will go very far.

In respect to the novel of the same name, it did very well! The slight few things that differed, improved the film. Seeing the book on the silver screen worked wonders, no matter if we knew the story already or not.

The length of the movie, nearly 2.5 hours, was actually quite necessary. The preparation for the games required lots of attention, as did the games themselves, obviously. The time spent in each area was well- determined.

I am pretty glad they didn't make this movie 3D. While it may have made it neat at times, there just wasn't enough reason to justify it.