Posts Tagged ‘Movie Reviews’

Brett Ratner’s “Hercules” is a solid if unspectacular swords and sandals epic that rises and falls on the broad shoulders of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. While the movie is slow to develop and the creative decision to attempt to demystify the beginnings and labors of Hercules is questionable, the film does pick up considerable steam in its second half.

Many of the twists in the final act are predictable, though Johnson’s presence is able to still make the experience fun and as believable as possible.  It is also a testament to his popularity and his relentless use of social media that “Hercules” has even been as moderately successful as it has (considering an overall lack of interest in the project by movie-goers).

Dwayne Johnson has proven to be a shot-in-the-arm to many existing franchises, but creating one of his own has thus far been elusive.  “Hercules” is unlikely to change his fortunes anytime soon.

Mark J. Marble

If Hollywood wants a blueprint of how to reboot a franchise, they need look no further than Fox’s last two “Planet of the Apes” pictures.  Despite presenting a different way for the Apes to rise to dominance, the new series pays respect to the themes, legacy and heart of the original five films.

Much like its predecessor “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” Dawn is driven by the performance of Andy Serkis as Caesar.  Caesar is such a noble and honorable character that not only is it  almost impossible not to root for him, but you truly want to see more of his story.  As an Ape messiah who was raised by loving humans, he truly is a child of two worlds.

While natural expectations (and marketing) would lead you to believe this was simply going to be another case of the bad human/good ape morality play, the plot itself is a great deal more gray than black and white.  Director Matt Reeves powerfully delivers home the belief that there always is good and evil on both sides of every conflict.

Caesar’s human counterpart is Malcolm, played by Jason Clarke.  He becomes an ally and unexpected friend to the Ape leader, proving that there are still good people left despite the aftermath of devastating war and disease.  The closeness between the two echoes back to the loving and respectful relationship between Caesar and James Franco’s Will in “Rise,” especially in one touching scene towards the end.

While the ending points to a future that we knew was probably unavoidable, the final acceptance of this fact is still a bitter pill for Man, Ape (and movie-goers) to swallow.

With great writing, direction and acting, this classic sci-fi series has been reborn and the next chapter is definitely something I’m looking forward to.

Mark J. Marble

The expression “Seen one, Seen them all” could have practically been invented to describe Michael Bay’s “Transformers” franchise.  Each film gives you pretty much the same thing: state of the art special effects, explosions, poor screenwriting and mostly uninteresting human characters.

“Transformers: Age of Extinction” takes this formula to the extreme, including in running time as the movie clocks in at nearly 3 hours long.   While Mark Wahlberg is definitely an upgrade from Shia “My Career is Imploding” Labeouf, he isn’t entirely believable as a struggling inventor/ repairman who is barely keeping his head above water.  Still, he’s the only interesting human in the film (at least until Stanley Tucci begins to get more and more screen time).  Tucci is clearly above this material.  He steals the show in the second half of this overly long “epic.”

The plot this time around revolves around a government conspiracy to eliminate ALL Transformers (Autobots & Decepticons) while learning enough about their DNA and power source to create their own homegrown Transformers (which is where Tucci’s character comes into play).  Throw in an alien bounty hunter (Lockdown) for good measure, and you pretty much have it.

The much-hyped Dinobots only appear in the movie’s final hour and they don’t really get to do very much, though they are visually impressive.

How you feel about this film will greatly depend on how much you enjoyed the previous three.  While I’ve never loved any of them, I did think “Dark of the Moon” was the best of the original trilogy.  “Transformers: Age of Extinction” feels like a big step down in the wrong direction though.

With “X-Men: Days of Future Past”, Bryan Singer makes a triumphant return to the franchise he started and in the process gives us the best X-Men movie to date

Staying true to the basic concept of the classic 1981 story line, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” tells the tale of a dark, doomed not-so-distant future and the desperate attempt (via time travel) to change the past and alter the time line.

Wolverine once again takes center stage as his healing factor enables the surviving future X-Men to send his consciousness back into his younger body.  Once there, he must seek out both the younger Xavier and Magneto in order to prevent Mystique from killing Bolivar Trask.  The assassination of Trask would trigger the implementation and use of his anti-mutant weapon system (the Sentinels), and herald the beginning of the end of both man & mutant.

There is a nice balance between the time spent in the past with the “First Class” cast and the original cast’s final battle in the future, as they struggle to buy Logan enough time to complete his mission.   Bishop and Blink also get some good moments as they engage the ever-evolving Sentinels.

Hugh Jackman gives his best performance as Wolverine, bringing some restraint to the table this time, along with his usual humor.  Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy build on the great chemistry they established in “First Class.”  The breakout star though is Evan Peters as Quicksilver.   Despite the early concerns regarding his look, the character really works in this movie.  The use of his powers during an important prison break sequence is highlight of the film.

“Days of Future Past” should have a special appeal to the millions (and millions) of X-Men fans who were less than thrilled with “X3: The Last Stand” as it mostly erases the bad taste left from that poor effort.

Overall, this is the most enjoyable and satisfying movie of the summer so far, and it helps breathe new life into a franchise that had seemingly seen its best days already past.

Mark J. Marble

By Chad Bokelman:

Classic rock, grilling, camping, family values…and Godzilla. These are the things I got from my father. The latter of which was via video cassette rental viewings one on one between my father and I. Therefore, to me, Godzilla TRULY is the King of the Monsters. Now, I’ll be the first to admit, 1998 Godzilla is a guilty pleasure movie for me. If it’s on? I’ll watch it. BECAUSE IT’S GODZILLA. So when I heard they were releasing a NEW Godzilla movie…I was stoked. When I saw the teaser trailer, I LITERALLY watched it 20+ times that night. When the first ACTUAL trailer came out, I jumped out of my chair.

My standards were high.

And they were not let down.

Now I’ll admit that the criticism that has been leveled at this movie is justified. Not enough kaiju, too many characters, “bad” acting, etc. But here’s the deal. 1998 Godzilla left a BAD taste in peoples mouths. They had to set the reset button. The original movies we all love so much? They had to set the reset button. There is TOO MUCH history to Godzilla bogging him down. TOO MUCH that fans (including myself) bring to the theater seat with them. They had to break free of those constraints and yet remain true to the core of who Godzilla is. That is an incredibly difficult task.

But they did it. Godzilla wasn’t overly benevolent or cuddly. He was feral and ancient and powerful and massive and intimidating. He WALKED and let nothing get in his way. He used his arms, he used his teeth, he used his tail, he used his size. His roar was true to form and FANTASTIC. His origin was plausible and not overly complicated. It still maintained a slight air of mystery to be explored (or not) later on. The MUTO’s were nicely designed. I felt they looked too…Clover (from ‘Cloverfield’) meets the alien from ‘Super 8’. I guess I’m trying to say it looked more ALIEN than anything that originated on Earth (whereas Godzilla looks…domestic).

Did I truly care about the human-based plot? Not really. But, to be fair, I really didn’t want a knock down, drag out monster fight for the entire movie either. I’m GLAD they took the time to introduce Godzilla to a modern audience and build the threat level enough to where you can see the NEED for Godzilla.

The fight scenes weren’t overly one sided and the “final blow” was quite possibly the best Godzilla moment I’ve seen on the big screen.

Bottom line? This was the best movie I’ve seen in a good long while. Is it the best movie I’ve ever seen? By no means. But it ABSOLUTELY is a fun, action packed, true to form, Godzilla movie. I give it a 4.3 out of 5. Small changes here and there, but overall a FANTASTIC flick!

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a tough movie to put your finger on because it truly is a mixed bag.  The things it does right, it does very right, but there are also some problems with the film as well.

The strength of the movie is the chemistry between Andrew Garfield’s Peter and Emma Stone’s Gwen.  Their relationship is the glue that holds the film together.

This is also the most accurate on-screen portrayal of Spider-Man we’ve seen yet.   He moves, acts and jokes like the character many of us grew up reading about when we were kids.  The fight scenes are also probably the best yet in the franchise.

While Jamie Foxx’s Electro hovers close to an over-the-top performance that would make Joel Schumacher proud, he does manage to rein it in just enough to make entertaining.   Dane DeHann’s  Harry Osborn is much less successful.  His version of Harry lacks the warmth or depth of James Franco’s version in the Sam Raimi trilogy.   It is also much harder to buy into the close friendship between him and Peter.  Purists will also be troubled with the decision to make Harry the 1st Green Goblin and have him essentially take over his father’s (Norman) role in one of the most important events in Spider-Man’s history.  The choice also seems odd since we’ve been told repeatedly how director Marc Webb wanted to be true to the Peter/Gwen relationship and history, but yet gives us this big change.  Paul Giamatti is quite effective as the once and future Rhino, despite barely getting any screen time.  He is used essentially as a framing device to bookend where Peter/Spidey is at the beginning and end of the movie.

The movie is probably at least 20 minutes too long, with way too much time being devoted to showing us what happened to Peter’s parents and tying all the evils in the Spider-Man universe seemingly to Oscorp.  Beginning the film by seeing Peter abandoned again with Aunt May and Uncle Ben and spending those opening moments focused on Peter’s parents, instead of Peter himself, was an odd choice.

The reviews overall have been pretty bad, and while I think they might be too harsh, I definitely see where they are coming from.  “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” does seem often to be more interested in setting up what comes next more than what is happening now.  While it is definitely better than “Spider-Man 3,” I don’t know if I’d rate it above any of the other Spider-Man films.   Like I said earlier, it’s a tough movie to wrap yourself around (at least after only one viewing).

–  Mark J. Marble