Plot
"When Tony Stark tries to jumpstart a dormant peacekeeping program, things go awry and it is up to the Avengers to stop the villainous Ultron from enacting his terrible plans".
My Thoughts
The First "Avengers" Film for me was a good film but not the best "Marvel" Film of all time for me it was "X2" after seeing "Avengers:Age Of Ultron" "X2" is still the top film for me. Let me say that I was actually somewhat disappointed with Age of Ultron, one of my favorite aspects of the original Avengers was the subtle simplicity of the film there was no huge convoluted story line or multiple story lines intertwined in the film, Avengers was a blockbuster superhero mash up done right, Age of Ultron to me did all of these aspects wrong, first off I felt the plot of the film was not very good and was needlessly complicated at times there are some love story aspects thrown in there to boot, which for me always ruins any superhero movie for the most part, Superhero films for me should be action first everything else second unless the film is an origin story where some character development and back story is needed to establish the base of the film, Age of ultron's story for me was just all over the place, there was too much going on for me, The acting was solid and what I have come to expect from this group of Actors (I was happy that Hawkeye did have a larger role in this film compared to the first, And I will also add that James Spader stole the show as Ultron) he was awesome in his role he had a very good sense of humility and charm to him even though the character was a robot, By the end of the film I can honestly say that I was rooting for Ultron to win even though this goes against the entire film I can say this was one of the few super hero films I wanted the bad guy to win, James spader was that good as Ultron.The special effects were top notch and the quality was of hat I expected from a movie of this Budget, The action was another part of the film that for me fell short, Compared to the first film the action just didn't meet my expectations in terms of the enemies that they faced and the amount of action films as well, another gripe I had with the action was the final battle scene to me paled in comparison to the final battle in the first film.Rotten Tomatoes gave this film a 75% saying "Exuberant and eye-popping, Avengers: Age of Ultron serves as an overstuffed but mostly satisfying sequel, reuniting its predecessor's unwieldy cast with a few new additions and a worthy foe". Overall I agree mostly with this score the film was beautiful and had great effects but the overall package when coupled with the lackluster fight scenes and the disappointing plot just made this film fall below my expectations.
Rating
I was expecting better than the final product, First film better overall in my opinion 7.3/10!!!!
The next film for review is Mad Max:Fury Road" starring Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult.
Plot
"In a stark desert landscape where humanity is broken, two rebels just might be able to restore order: Max, a man of action and of few words, and Furiosa, a woman of action who is looking to make it back to her childhood homeland".
My Thoughts
"Masterpiece" "One of the best films of the last 20 years" "Top Ten Film of the year" those are some of the descriptions I found when reading reviews about "Mad Max:Fury Road". needles to say this really raised my expectations for the film after hearing some of the hype words being thrown around about the film. I can say I wasn't a huge fan of the original films even though I understand their cult status as of today. After having now viewed the film I can say that while it was a solid film, it was in no way in my opionion a "Masterpiece" or "One of the best films of the last 10 years" that is not to say the film was bad, it was a solid film that I mostly enjoyed and would recommend to view at least once. The setting of this film is very similar to the original films, set in a desert laden futuristic wasteland where there is not much hope for life and where everyday people fight with each other over the simplest of things. The acting for me was okay nothing great but solid, Tom Hardy recently has become one of my more appreciated actors, I have seen him in a few movies recently and for me it is coming to a point where I am expecting great performances out of him regularly now, I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with his role as the title character in this film, it wasn't that his performance was bad but the script to me underutilized his talents, for most of the film Tom Hardy didn't have many speaking lines and made more of a grunting noise throughout most of the film, even in his speaking roles he still sounded like a neanderthal and I could barely understand him I put that more on the script and how they wanted the lines delivered than on Mr.Hardy's shoulders overall, Charlize Theron played the character of Furiosa who over the course of the film to me became the central character to the story, Her performance was very good but for me this film should have been called Mad Max"Furiosa's way, it honestly felt like her movie once her character was introduces, there is nothing wrong with Furiosa becoming a central figure the the film but it was basically her film and I felt Mad Max was an afterthought once her story arc started to get going. The rest of the cast did a solid job and there weren't any really bad performances in the film, the special effects in this film where awesome and some of the best I have seen this year in a film, there is a particular scene during a desert storm that is jaw dropping and was beautiful to look at. I will say for anyone thinking of seeing this film do not see in 3D, as most films nowadays the 3D is post processed and there was only once scene I could make out where the 3Dactually worked pretty well. Rotten Tomatoes Gave this film a 98% saying "With exhilarating action and a surprising amount of narrative heft, Mad Max: Fury Road brings George Miller's post-apocalyptic franchise roaring vigorously back to life". While there was a good amount of action in the film, and the story was easy to follow and made sense, I jsut left the theater with a feeling that this film should not have had the "Mad Max" title to it as I mentioned earlier if this film was titled "Mad Max"Furiosa's way" the film's story would have made much more sense, this was still a solid film and I do recommend it, but by no means in my opinion is this film a "Masterpiece" solid film though.
Rating
Solid film, very good action and special effects, Good acting, recommend 8.1/10!!!
The next film for review is "Poltergeist" starring Sam Rockwell, Rosemarie Dewitt and Saxon Sharbino.
Plot
"A family whose suburban home is haunted by evil forces must come together to rescue their youngest daughter after the apparitions take her captive".
My Thoughts
I was a pretty big fan of the original "poltergeist" Film, for its time it was nicely done and is a horror film that I frequent and always enjoy it when I do. When news of a remake was first announced I was pretty apprehensive, I didn't really see a need to reboot the franchise, it has its place in time and I would say leave it there no need to modernize it, After seeing the film my apprehension was correct, this film was overall not very good, lets start off first with a PG-13 rating, my general rule of thumb when it comes to any horror movie is to make it rated R, anything less and you get a marginalized horror film that feels like there could have been more done to try and scare the audience in my opinion. This film had that feeling to me, the film tried to do the whole jump scare tactic and for me it just didn't work at all, most of the attempted scares by the film, you could see coming a mile away and by the time the scare came you knew it was there and no surprises or something you didn't expect to see, The acting in this film was really a letdown the main cast is headlined by Sam Rockwell, who I have seen in a few films prior t o this (most notably The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy as the character Zaphod) and generally he had done well in the films I have seen him in, this film was not one of them, his performance as the Father Eric was probably the worst performance in a role I have seen this year, his character was really sarcastic especially in the beginning of the film, showed no empathy with his children until basically the end of the film and even then it looked forced, and overall I didn't enjoy his character one bit, I am always reluctant to put it solely on the actor in situations like these as it comes down sometimes to the script and how the director wants the lines delivered, but in this case I have to put some on Mr.Rockwell some of the facial expressions and lines that he delivered in this film where cringe worthy, the rest of the cast didn't do any better another annoying standout for me was Griffin the son in the family played by Kyle Catlett I have not seen a more whiny character in a long time, I understand his role was that of a 10 year old boy but he whined about everything and halfway through the film whenever his character had a scene I was really tempted to just look the other way and on a couple of occasion I actually did but could still hear his character whine about something else, if the intention of the director was to convey a whiny 10 year old boy then he did that job in spades and deserves a gold star, there where no good performances in this film from an acting standpoint, which is disappointing usually in lower budget films the actors usually carry the films, this was not the case here. The other huge gripe I had with this film was THE CG, it is 2015 and the CG in this film really felt Like I was watching a film from 2005 , Honestly the CG was so bad that it was like they didn't even try, you could easily spot out what was CG, I honestly would have preferred if the went the route of the original film and used animatronics and it would have looked better. the only part of this film that I actually liked was the story staying true mostly to the original that was nice to see and I appreciated that. Rotten Tomatoes
gave this film a 33% saying "Paying competent homage without adding anything of real value to the original Poltergeist, this remake proves just as ephemeral (but half as haunting) as its titular spirit". I agree somewhat the film honestly didn't add anything different to the original but I preferred it that way and it comes back around to what I said earlier thsi film was not needed and shouldnt have been made.
Rating
Staying true to the original was the only thing this film did right, otherwise bad film and not worth seeing. 6.5/10!!!!!
The last film tot review for the month of May is "San Andreas" starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Carla Gugino and Paul Gimatti.
Plot
"In the aftermath of a massive earthquake in California, a rescue-chopper pilot makes a dangerous journey across the state in order to rescue his daughter".
My Thoughts
Disaster films are one of my favorite type of "Genres" I would say the main reason I like this type of film would be down to the feeling that for the most part a film were mother nature decides to fight back is something that could actually happen in real life. A tornado, or a Hurricane or in the case of "San Andreas" are all totally possible and could strike at any time. When I first heard about this movie I was hooked, I have never seen a really good "Earthquake" Natural disaster film so for me this was a chance to cross that type of disaster film off my list, When I heard that "The Rock" was going to star in it, I knew I would see this film as soon as it came out. After seeing the film I would say that it was "Solid" and met my expectations overall. First off I will say that "The Rock" was easily the best part of this film, he has really come a long way since "The Mummy Returns" back in 2001 and is now one of my favorite actors, he did a really good job playing the father who is going through a divorce from his wife (Gugino) while trying to deal wit his daughter (Alex Daddario) growing up and getting ready for college and dealing with a great personal tragedy that really helps the viewer understand the character more later in the film. he showed a great range especially with his emotions in this film and it was nice to see he has that acting ability. the rest of the cast for me was pretty underwhelming, Carla Gugino did an okay job playing the ex-wife of "The Rock's" Character but for me overall she didn't really have much presence and kind of felt like she was "just along for the ride". Alexandra Daddario, while a very pretty girl is for me not a very good actress I have seen her in a few roles over the years and every time I just got the impression that she was just a "pretty face" to fill a role, and that was the case again in this film, her scenes weren't terrible but her character didn't really have much substance to it , I would even go as far to say her character had less of an impact than Gugiono's character, the only significant role that Alexandra Daddario's character played was that she was the whole reason that "The Rock's" character to trek across the state of California to save her. Now onto the real reason to see Disaster Films the destruction, "The Day After Tommorrow" is my favorite Disaster film overall, I will say that "San Andreas" overtakes that film in the destruction department, this film for the most part is non stop action,destruction mayhem and that is what I really liked about it, the CG was very well done and was hard to differentiate from real shots, some of the views that were shown were breathtaking and easily the best I have ever seen from a disaster movie by far if you are a fan of destruction and non stop action you will love this aspect for the film. Being from California it was interesting to see how this film was done and it was nice to see that the film captured Northern and Southern California Perfectly, it was interesting to see landmarks such as AT&T Park being destroyed having actually seen the stadium in person, an earthquake to native Californians is a natural disaster that we had all experienced before and the threat was very real, I experienced my fair share of earthquakes, luckily nothing on this magnitude. RottenTomatoes gave the film a 49% saying "San Andreas has a great cast and outstanding special effects, but amidst all the senses-shattering destruction, the movie's characters and plot prove less than structurally sound". I agree mostly with what was said, the cast on paper did look great but as I mentioned earlier overall other than "The Rock" it was underwhelming, the special effects were awesome and some of the best I have seen in recent memeory and for the most part the plot was pretty weak but made sense for the type of film it was. Overall this was a solid film that is worth seeing at least once, if you are a fan of "The Rock" or of Natural Disaster films then I reccomend it.
Rating
Solid Film, "The Rock" was the standout, Beautiful destruction scenes 7.1/10!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment