Plot Summary:
Agent J (Will Smith) travels back in time to 1969 to stop alien assassin Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) from killing his partner Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones/Josh Brolin) and changing history as a result.
The Positives:
I am a huge fan of the first Men In Black movie, I loved the humor and charisma that Jones and Smith brought to the characters. The final product was a fresh and original idea that sci-fi comedies never attempted before. However, the 2002 sequel ripped apart the ideas of the original film and it felt it was made for the money only. When a second sequel was announced, I was 50/50 about it. I was worried it would be as bad or worse than MIB2, and I had some feeling it would be a good sequel that brought back memories. The final product is just an alright one. For starters, it's better than MIB2.
I felt happy seeing Smith and Jones back on screen as Agent J and K. Although they do not have a lot of screen time together, it was humorous to see them go back at together when they have these moments together. Josh Brolin nails it as a young Agent K. He was the best possible choice to play a young Tommy Lee Jones: his voice and actions pretty much sold it for me.
I also enjoyed the visual effects and Rick Baker's makeup work. It's refreshing to see makeup create original creatures, rather than CGI nowadays. The aliens looked really cool because of this look. I also enjoyed the colors and the recreation of 1969 due to the visual effects in this film. The 3D also helped the visual effects rather than worsen them.
The main reason I had fun with this film though is the nostalgic moments this film brings. The interactions between Jones and Smith are always enjoyable to watch. The humor, although outdated for today's standards, works for this film since it is humor we would expect in 1997. It's refreshing to see clean humor rather than raunchy humor, it's a safe film to take kids 10 and older. I also really loved the twist at the end of this film, it's a really touching one that explains a lot.
The Negatives:
Like I said earlier, this film is just an alright one, it has its flaws. The script is pretty weak for the most part. The dialogue was pretty lousy, and some of the jokes fell flat or were already in the trailers. If there was more work in the script, I think this would be a better sequel.
I was personally disappointed in some of the new characters. I'm a Jemaine Clement fan, but I felt his portrayal as a villain as weak. I felt he really had no motivation to do this film, and did the least amount he could do to make this film work. It was a disappointing performance on his part because I know Clement could do so much more with roles. The script also limits this villain from doing anything exciting, so it isn't 100% Clement's fault.
I also was not fond of the character known as Griffin, played by Michael Stuhlbarg. It was obvious that the script wanted him to be the wise character, one who gives a lot of advice and prepares the character for the future. I honestly wished the film did not include this character at all. Instead of coming off as wise, he came off as an overly annoying character, similar to Jar Jar Binks. The script did not need him, I wonder why they felt it was necessary to include him.
Conclusion:
Men In Black 3 is a better sequel than the second film, but it is still an unnecessary one. It has its moments of nostalgia and its characters, for the most part, are enjoyable to watch. I just feel that Men In Black should have been a standalone film rather than a franchise. All in all, it's not a bad film. It's a harmless film that MIB fans would be satisfied by.
Rating: 6 out of 10
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Battleship Review
Plot Summary:
During a series of war games, an international fleet of naval ships comes across an alien armada. A battle among sea, land, and air ensues. What are these aliens' motives? Based on the Hasbro board game of the same name.
The Positives:
There are certainly a lot of negatives to this film and I mean, a lot...However, this film does have one or two bright points. For instance, the special effects in this film are really well done. The alien ships look cool and the explosions look very intense.
Also, this film has small moments of unintentional humor. While not a lot of it to say it's a film so bad that it's good, these small moments are enjoyable and will make you laugh at how unconvincing it is.
The Negatives:
Oh, where do I start? The acting is so dull, wooden, and boring throughout. Every actor here does a lazy job and doesn't even try. Taylor Kitsch, who we last saw in John Carter, gives his second awful performance in this film, I think he should stick to TV acting. The supporting cast is awful, including Liam Neeson who normally is the saving grace for bad films.
The look of the aliens and their motives are absolutely stupid. The aliens here barely look like aliens at all. It's just dumb to look at and I feel that the special effects artists were too lazy on the look of the aliens. I honestly do not even understand the motives of the aliens, the script made it too confusing to follow these aliens' motives.
The script for this film is awful beyond belief. The ridiculousness of this plot is not even the problem with it. The dialogue is extremely cliche and corny. Half of the dialogue said in this film I have heard in other movies before this one. There are so many dumb subplots throughout that I stopped caring after an hour. The writing made the characters so unlikeable and their motives and actions unbelievably stupid throughout. This is a film that should be shown to future scriptwriters on not what to do while writing a script.
While I said the special effects were a redeeming point for the film, it certainly did not help the action scenes at all. The camera work and editing made the action scenes extremely hard to follow at times. Not to mention that these action scenes are among one of the more obnoxious and unnecessarily loud action scenes I have encountered over the years.
Conclusion:
Battleship is a mess on all accounts. This will easily go down as one of the worst films of 2012, if not the worst. Terrible acting, dumb characters, awful script and poorly shot action scenes create a horrendous and dumb blockbuster. A complete waste of time, save your money and see something else.
Rating: .5 out of 10
During a series of war games, an international fleet of naval ships comes across an alien armada. A battle among sea, land, and air ensues. What are these aliens' motives? Based on the Hasbro board game of the same name.
The Positives:
There are certainly a lot of negatives to this film and I mean, a lot...However, this film does have one or two bright points. For instance, the special effects in this film are really well done. The alien ships look cool and the explosions look very intense.
Also, this film has small moments of unintentional humor. While not a lot of it to say it's a film so bad that it's good, these small moments are enjoyable and will make you laugh at how unconvincing it is.
The Negatives:
Oh, where do I start? The acting is so dull, wooden, and boring throughout. Every actor here does a lazy job and doesn't even try. Taylor Kitsch, who we last saw in John Carter, gives his second awful performance in this film, I think he should stick to TV acting. The supporting cast is awful, including Liam Neeson who normally is the saving grace for bad films.
The look of the aliens and their motives are absolutely stupid. The aliens here barely look like aliens at all. It's just dumb to look at and I feel that the special effects artists were too lazy on the look of the aliens. I honestly do not even understand the motives of the aliens, the script made it too confusing to follow these aliens' motives.
The script for this film is awful beyond belief. The ridiculousness of this plot is not even the problem with it. The dialogue is extremely cliche and corny. Half of the dialogue said in this film I have heard in other movies before this one. There are so many dumb subplots throughout that I stopped caring after an hour. The writing made the characters so unlikeable and their motives and actions unbelievably stupid throughout. This is a film that should be shown to future scriptwriters on not what to do while writing a script.
While I said the special effects were a redeeming point for the film, it certainly did not help the action scenes at all. The camera work and editing made the action scenes extremely hard to follow at times. Not to mention that these action scenes are among one of the more obnoxious and unnecessarily loud action scenes I have encountered over the years.
Conclusion:
Battleship is a mess on all accounts. This will easily go down as one of the worst films of 2012, if not the worst. Terrible acting, dumb characters, awful script and poorly shot action scenes create a horrendous and dumb blockbuster. A complete waste of time, save your money and see something else.
Rating: .5 out of 10
The Dictator Review
Plot Summary:
Aladeen (Sacha Baron Cohen) is the ruthless dictator of Wadiya. He has risked his life over the years to make sure that democracy will never come to his country. He is summoned to the UN to address their concerns about his nuclear program.
The Positives:
I'm a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen. I enjoy the movies when he pretends to be a person from another country causing havoc and controversial jokes in America. What makes this film different from Borat or Bruno is the fact that this film has an actual story and not a mockumentary. For the most part, the film works in that aspect.
Cohen gives a fantastic performance as usual as Aladeen. The trouble he goes through is hilarious and is constantly entertaining to watch. I wished they went with the mockumentary approach for this character, but Cohen makes it work. The supporting cast, such as Ben Kingsley, Anna Faris, and John C. Reilly, are great and support Cohen's antics throughout.
I also really enjoyed the jokes in this film. Most of them involve Aladeen's experience in America, which is either hysterical gross-out humor or dumb, stereotypical humor. Regardless of what type of humor it is, it really works. I also like the Aladeen song parodies in the background, they made me chuckle at times when the scene is not meant to be funny.
The Negatives:
Personally, I was slightly disappointed with The Dictator. Although it is very funny and disgusting, I always felt they could have done more with it. The jokes are great, but sometimes they fell flat and didn't work as much as other jokes in the film.
I also felt that the pacing for the story didn't feel right either. I felt they put certain scenes in just for the gross-out humor factor and just for the point of the film being funny. I feel if they put more effort into the story, the film would be as classic as Borat was. This is the reason why Cohen should stick to making mockumentaries rather than feature films.
Conclusion:
The Dictator is full of nonstop gross-out humor and political humor and has a great cast, but it deserved a better story and a mockumentary style. For the most part though, The Dictator is very funny and worth checking out in theaters.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Aladeen (Sacha Baron Cohen) is the ruthless dictator of Wadiya. He has risked his life over the years to make sure that democracy will never come to his country. He is summoned to the UN to address their concerns about his nuclear program.
The Positives:
I'm a fan of Sacha Baron Cohen. I enjoy the movies when he pretends to be a person from another country causing havoc and controversial jokes in America. What makes this film different from Borat or Bruno is the fact that this film has an actual story and not a mockumentary. For the most part, the film works in that aspect.
Cohen gives a fantastic performance as usual as Aladeen. The trouble he goes through is hilarious and is constantly entertaining to watch. I wished they went with the mockumentary approach for this character, but Cohen makes it work. The supporting cast, such as Ben Kingsley, Anna Faris, and John C. Reilly, are great and support Cohen's antics throughout.
I also really enjoyed the jokes in this film. Most of them involve Aladeen's experience in America, which is either hysterical gross-out humor or dumb, stereotypical humor. Regardless of what type of humor it is, it really works. I also like the Aladeen song parodies in the background, they made me chuckle at times when the scene is not meant to be funny.
The Negatives:
Personally, I was slightly disappointed with The Dictator. Although it is very funny and disgusting, I always felt they could have done more with it. The jokes are great, but sometimes they fell flat and didn't work as much as other jokes in the film.
I also felt that the pacing for the story didn't feel right either. I felt they put certain scenes in just for the gross-out humor factor and just for the point of the film being funny. I feel if they put more effort into the story, the film would be as classic as Borat was. This is the reason why Cohen should stick to making mockumentaries rather than feature films.
Conclusion:
The Dictator is full of nonstop gross-out humor and political humor and has a great cast, but it deserved a better story and a mockumentary style. For the most part though, The Dictator is very funny and worth checking out in theaters.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Avengers Review
Plot Summary:
Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of SHIELD recruits Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) to save the world from the disaster of Loki (Tom Hiddleston).
The Positives:
The Avengers has been in the works ever since 2008's Iron Man. Every Marvel film after that movie has teased plot details for this movie since. Does all of those small teasers and end credit scenes ultimately pay off? My answer is yes, and it does so in a very satisfying way.
One strength this film has that recent Marvel films have is its excellent casting. Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth all return to their characters in wonderful fashion and it's no wonder why Marvel chose these actors to choose them. However, the best performance here is Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of the Hulk. He explodes whenever he's on screen, and it was made obvious to me that this is the best on-screen portrayal of the Hulk. I highly anticipate Ruffalo's stand-alone Hulk film. Renner, Johansson, Hiddleston, and Jackson all give great performances as well.
The writing here is very well done here too. Writer and director Joss Whedon is known for making fantastic ensemble films and shows and it is evident here. All of the characters get a good amount of screen time and are developed wonderfully. I also love the fights between the heroes when the team is forming up. It shows that these superheroes can be human too, and starting up a team can be a hard process. I also enjoyed the well-placed humor this film offers, it uses its humor effectively and doesn't overshadow the film with it.
Most people will say that the action scenes are reminiscent of a Michael Bay film. While they have a lot of explosions and violence similar to Bay's films, the difference is that we care about these characters. The action scenes are very well done and will keep you entertained every time they happen on-screen. The visual effects in this scenes are also fantastic, possibly one of Marvel's better attempts at visual effects.
One thing I can commend on is its pacing. The film is two and a half hours long, and it doesn't feel like it at all. The pacing is very fast, and it feels like you've only been in there for 90 minutes. A lot of recent epics have difficulty doing this, but The Avengers does a great job with its pacing.
The Negatives:
While this film is a great summer blockbuster, it isn't perfect. One issue I had with it was while most of the characters get a lot of depth and screen time, I feel that Jeremy Renner's character gets the least amount of time and depth. I was curious to learn more about this character, but the writing prevented the audience from doing so.
Another issue I had was the fact that the visual effects and the action sequences ultimately overshadow the plot. I feel that at points, Whedon focused more on the action scenes than the characters. This only happens a few times in the film though, so it's not a big concern.
Conclusion:
While it's not Marvel's best film, The Avengers is a very well-made and entertaining summer blockbuster. With its dazzling visual effects, smart script, and fantastic performances, the summer movie season couldn't have started in a more satisfying way.
Rating: 8.5 out of 10
Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of SHIELD recruits Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), The Incredible Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) to save the world from the disaster of Loki (Tom Hiddleston).
The Positives:
The Avengers has been in the works ever since 2008's Iron Man. Every Marvel film after that movie has teased plot details for this movie since. Does all of those small teasers and end credit scenes ultimately pay off? My answer is yes, and it does so in a very satisfying way.
One strength this film has that recent Marvel films have is its excellent casting. Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth all return to their characters in wonderful fashion and it's no wonder why Marvel chose these actors to choose them. However, the best performance here is Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of the Hulk. He explodes whenever he's on screen, and it was made obvious to me that this is the best on-screen portrayal of the Hulk. I highly anticipate Ruffalo's stand-alone Hulk film. Renner, Johansson, Hiddleston, and Jackson all give great performances as well.
The writing here is very well done here too. Writer and director Joss Whedon is known for making fantastic ensemble films and shows and it is evident here. All of the characters get a good amount of screen time and are developed wonderfully. I also love the fights between the heroes when the team is forming up. It shows that these superheroes can be human too, and starting up a team can be a hard process. I also enjoyed the well-placed humor this film offers, it uses its humor effectively and doesn't overshadow the film with it.
Most people will say that the action scenes are reminiscent of a Michael Bay film. While they have a lot of explosions and violence similar to Bay's films, the difference is that we care about these characters. The action scenes are very well done and will keep you entertained every time they happen on-screen. The visual effects in this scenes are also fantastic, possibly one of Marvel's better attempts at visual effects.
One thing I can commend on is its pacing. The film is two and a half hours long, and it doesn't feel like it at all. The pacing is very fast, and it feels like you've only been in there for 90 minutes. A lot of recent epics have difficulty doing this, but The Avengers does a great job with its pacing.
The Negatives:
While this film is a great summer blockbuster, it isn't perfect. One issue I had with it was while most of the characters get a lot of depth and screen time, I feel that Jeremy Renner's character gets the least amount of time and depth. I was curious to learn more about this character, but the writing prevented the audience from doing so.
Another issue I had was the fact that the visual effects and the action sequences ultimately overshadow the plot. I feel that at points, Whedon focused more on the action scenes than the characters. This only happens a few times in the film though, so it's not a big concern.
Conclusion:
While it's not Marvel's best film, The Avengers is a very well-made and entertaining summer blockbuster. With its dazzling visual effects, smart script, and fantastic performances, the summer movie season couldn't have started in a more satisfying way.
Rating: 8.5 out of 10
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
The Five-Year Engagement Review
Plot Summary:
After dating a year, Tom (Jason Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt). However, unexpected events keep tripping them up as they look to walk down the aisle together.
The Positives:
I tend to enjoy the comedic writing team of Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller. I have enjoyed their previous films: Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek and The Muppets. Although I believe this is their weakest effort as a team, the film has some positives.
For starters, I really enjoyed the casting. Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are great in their respective roles as the engaged couple who encounters many problems. Their performances seemed very natural for the situations they go through. I also really enjoyed the supporting cast: Rhys Ifans, Kevin Hart, Chris Pratt, etc. However, Brian Posehn provides the best lines in the movie.
One thing Stoller and Segel tend to write well is the comedic situations they go through. The one-liners for the most part are very hilarious. The physical comedy is what makes the film really work for me, this type of humor really works for the film. I enjoyed the stupid comedic portions of the film.
I also really enjoyed the chemistry between Jason Segel and Emily Blunt here. They act like a real couple based on the situations they encounter. They also poke fun at each other when encountering humorous situations.
The Negatives:
For starters, I can easily say I did not care for a single character this entire film. I felt all of the characters were stupid and extremely self-centered. I wanted to like each character, but their flaws made them unredeemable. They could've further developed the characters to make them redeemable, but the writers choose not to for some reason. As a result, I could not care for any of the characters.
Also, the film tries to go through the realistic and dark route at times. While it is ambitious, I felt it was very unnecessary and not needed for this type of film. Earlier in my review, I praised the realistic chemistry between Blunt and Segel. A flaw this film has is the fact it focuses too much on them bickering, fighting and acting strange to themselves and other people. While this stuff is realistic, it made the film less entertaining for me and I felt they should have worked the comedy around the situations, rather than keeping them separate.
Another flaw this film has is that it feels 30 minutes too long. When the film feels like it is over, it creates a new situation and makes you feel bored. Comedies have a certain time limit, and when they get too long, it loses its touch. I wish the ending ended a little faster than it did.
Conclusion:
The Five-Year Engagement has great comedic moments, strong casting and wonderful chemistry between Jason Segel and Emily Blunt. However, it suffers from unlikeable characters, unnecessary dark subplots, and an overlong runtime. The film itself is okay, but this is easily the weakest effort from the writing team of Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel.
Rating: 6 out of 10
After dating a year, Tom (Jason Segel) proposes to his girlfriend Violet (Emily Blunt). However, unexpected events keep tripping them up as they look to walk down the aisle together.
The Positives:
I tend to enjoy the comedic writing team of Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller. I have enjoyed their previous films: Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek and The Muppets. Although I believe this is their weakest effort as a team, the film has some positives.
For starters, I really enjoyed the casting. Jason Segel and Emily Blunt are great in their respective roles as the engaged couple who encounters many problems. Their performances seemed very natural for the situations they go through. I also really enjoyed the supporting cast: Rhys Ifans, Kevin Hart, Chris Pratt, etc. However, Brian Posehn provides the best lines in the movie.
One thing Stoller and Segel tend to write well is the comedic situations they go through. The one-liners for the most part are very hilarious. The physical comedy is what makes the film really work for me, this type of humor really works for the film. I enjoyed the stupid comedic portions of the film.
I also really enjoyed the chemistry between Jason Segel and Emily Blunt here. They act like a real couple based on the situations they encounter. They also poke fun at each other when encountering humorous situations.
The Negatives:
For starters, I can easily say I did not care for a single character this entire film. I felt all of the characters were stupid and extremely self-centered. I wanted to like each character, but their flaws made them unredeemable. They could've further developed the characters to make them redeemable, but the writers choose not to for some reason. As a result, I could not care for any of the characters.
Also, the film tries to go through the realistic and dark route at times. While it is ambitious, I felt it was very unnecessary and not needed for this type of film. Earlier in my review, I praised the realistic chemistry between Blunt and Segel. A flaw this film has is the fact it focuses too much on them bickering, fighting and acting strange to themselves and other people. While this stuff is realistic, it made the film less entertaining for me and I felt they should have worked the comedy around the situations, rather than keeping them separate.
Another flaw this film has is that it feels 30 minutes too long. When the film feels like it is over, it creates a new situation and makes you feel bored. Comedies have a certain time limit, and when they get too long, it loses its touch. I wish the ending ended a little faster than it did.
Conclusion:
The Five-Year Engagement has great comedic moments, strong casting and wonderful chemistry between Jason Segel and Emily Blunt. However, it suffers from unlikeable characters, unnecessary dark subplots, and an overlong runtime. The film itself is okay, but this is easily the weakest effort from the writing team of Nicholas Stoller and Jason Segel.
Rating: 6 out of 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)