Avengers: Age of Ultron

Joss Whedon, 2015

IMDB

3/5

The Avengers sequel aims to fulfill the obligation or hope of every sequel: to build upon the first film and to raise the stakes. The early moments of the film find The Avengers in a more vulnerable state. Questioning their value as the saviors and guardians of Earth's inhabitants. They are aware of some of the collateral damage sustained. They are aware of the fact that maybe their high profile is drawing more attention than they would like. And when Tony Stark inadvertently gives birth to a highly functioning AI form named Ultron, they realize that they have another opposing force that seems to make Loki look like an amateur even with his army of flying worms.

Whedon has proven at this point that he is capable of managing a big budget superhero film and he delivers a satisfying sequel to the rather good first Avengers film. If anything, the film is probably a half hour too long, perhaps some of the fat could have been trimmed. With it's 141 minute running time, there is a such an overstimulation of computer generated action that it becomes almost numbing. It seems as though you can only watch the CGI Hulk destroy a handful of buildings before it becomes a bit redundant.

One other blemish with Ultron is consistent with the Superhero / Marvel movies as a whole; the obvious franchise building that goes on. Marvel is now owned by the Disney Empire. With that comes substantial financing for geeky content but they also have board-members they need to please every quarter when they report earnings. That whole element feels calculating, and it takes some of the romance away from the movies knowing that the studios intention is to hook you in so they can count on your next $9. The Superhero bubble will burst at some point down the road. Until then, there are films like The Avengers films that can appeal to a broad audience and entertain the masses, even if it is just a showcase of special effects.

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Matthew Vaughn, 2015

IMDB

4/5

Matthew Vaughn returns to the director's chair for the first time since 2011's X-Men: First Class, one of the new generation / reincarnations of the X-Men franchise that focuses on origin stories with a mostly new cast. It was a good film, largely because they were able to imbue the CGI into the fabric of the film and not have it stand out or look gimmicky. The same thing goes for Kingsman, a story about a highly secretive and resourceful spy agency. The film focuses on young applicant Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a rebellious young adult whose father was a Kingsman and sacrificed himself to save his fellow service members.

The film grows in scale, all while maintaining a certain stylistic integrity. You're invested in the characters. It's suspenseful. Kingsman succeeds because it's self aware, never takes itself too seriously. It gives nods to the spy genre, with elements that remind you of the Bond franchise or Mission Impossible while also getting creative with some new concepts. You come away from Kingsman with some memories in your brain. Always a sign of a good film. The action sequences are well choreographed. The use of technology is enough to satisfy the inner geek in you. The blend of music and action is so well crafted that it reminds you of Vaughn's previous impressive work in Kick Ass. The film has a lot to offer, even if you aren't a big fan of the spy genre. At the very least, you'll be a fan of one of them. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Anthony & Joe Russo, 2014

Can I Stream it?

3/5

The Russo brothers (who are more known for a variety of comedic television work) add to the installment of Marvel comic book-adapted action films, making this one the 37th - counting all of them going back to a 1944 version of Captain America when Marvel Comics was called Timely Comics. Fortunately for modern-moviegoers, you are treated to seamless big-budget special effects that blend in so well to the scene that you never really raise an eyebrow. Just like the Iron Man films, the technology shown in the films now clearly exceeds that of the real world with things like hologram technology or advanced weaponry and it's just sort of become something that is now embedded in the Marvel franchise and you just accept it because it's all become a part of the franchise. When the elevator descends to the annals of the S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters and you see hundreds of advanced machines, you once again accept it because in this universe we have a guy like Tony Stark who can invent lots of amazing things for the military or even a chest repulsor transmitter for his own body. And while a lot of the other Marvel films involve some cross-pollination of the many characters, this one for the most part focuses on Steve Rogers and his Captain America character.

The film examines Captain America's struggles to adapt to the modern society after being frozen for decades. It also explores the patriotic elements associated with the whole Captain America image. Regret, lost love, loyalty, trust, dedication. It's an elaborate film, employing multiple antagonists such as covert-assassin The Winter Soldier, HYDRA front-man Alexander Pierce, as well as the other loyal HYDRA members helping to initiate a genocidal Helicarrier that will wipe out millions of people. The two hour plus running time allows enough time to balance the multiple story threads with the chaotic urban destruction. The Avengers franchise should be quite good for some time as long as the same cast stays committed to their respective roles.

Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino, 2012

2/5

          Django is a slave surprised to find himself suddenly freed by a bounty hunter named Dr. King Schultz (Chistoph Waltz). He joins up with Schultz to assist in pursuing outstanding warrants, specifically a familiar trio, while also on a quest to find and free his shackled wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). 

          After watching this I was wondering two things. One, am I outgrowing Tarantino? Is the gore, violence, verbose dialogue becoming too passe for me? Two, is Tarantino himself trying too hard now? At age 50, is he still trying to be cool? This is a departure from Inglourious Basterds, which I now believe is Tarantino's BEST FILM. Basterds gave me the feeling that Tarantino had grown-up. That film seemed so refined while still maintaining the themes of violence, tension and gore that you've grown accustomed to seeing in Tarantino's films. In fact, the tension in Basterds was applied perfectly. But in Django it feels like he took a step back. Tarantino wanted to put his name on the spaghetti-western, with enough blood and gore to make Sam Peckinpah smile in his grave. And he probably did. But what happened to the tension? I can't think of one scene in Django where I was on the edge of my seat like I was in that farmhouse scene in Basterds. The close-up of the beer in the Saloon had the level of intimacy that a Budweiser commercial would, while the closeup of the dessert in Basterds had me so in the moment that I felt I could taste it. Is history going to prove me wrong? Are we going to look back on the dinner scene at Candieland like we do with the Big Kahuna Burger eating scene in Pulp Fiction? I don't think so.
           There aren't several sub-plots or much back-story like Tarantino usually serves you in his films. The story felt basic. There were cutaways to past events that took me out of the moment. The sudden hallucinations of Broomhilda (taking a bath, on the roadside) were supposed to reinforce some kind of abstract thought but I found it to be empty. The best part of the film was certainly in the final hour, but even that had its flaws. Tarantino had to have his cameo, which I never would have a problem with. I loved his cameo in Pulp Fiction and in Reservoir Dogs. But what was that accent? I suppose it was supposed to be Australian? 

          I don't think its fair to be negative about every aspect about this film. There were certainly some admirable qualities to it. Great cinematography. Beautiful shots of the southern landscape... willow trees, beautiful mountains, authentic western towns. Great sound - the score added some flare and took risks. I liked the use of hip-hop during a couple of the scenes. History should be kind to that decision. Most of the acting was great. Cristoph Waltz, Quentin Tarantino's biggest gift to cinema, clearly deserved his Oscar for this performance. The only criticism I'll make about his role is the template itself seemed awfully similar to his role in Basterds. The second best performance, in my opinion, was by Samuel L. Jackson. I didn't even see him coming. It took me a couple minutes to realize it was him. Jackson, who usually plays a caricature of himself, delivered the best performance I've seen from him in years. Dicaprio was fine in his role as Calvin Candie, but I was left wondering if someone else could have better served the role as the younger plantation owner. Someone, like Tom Hardy, perhaps?
          Django Unchained is a Tarantino film that FEELS like a Tarantino film. I suppose my expectations were high, and they weren't met. I haven't given up on him, and I'll be sitting here excited for what he's going to do next.

Changing Lanes

(Roger Michell, 2002)

2/5



Nothing really memorable about this film. Dull, predictable, lackluster. Seems like the director had some good ideas but was never really able to apply them in away that would make this film distinct. They should have put more emphasis as the lost file being a symbol of their morality... Near the end of the film the torn and frayed file folder could have represented their weathered virtue. but it didnt. It was just a file folder. What's funny is the setting is in New York City, but it may as well have been shot in Cleveland. I don't even know if there was one shot of the New York skyline. Affleck was disappointing in the lead, lacked the depth that he seems to in every film. His strength is definitely as a director and not in acting roles. Samuel L. Jackson played himself for the most part. The best performance was Sydney Pollack who has a limited role in the film.