Frozen (2013) review

Disney… I don’t need to explain any more than that because I don’t need to. This company needs no introduction. It’s only the company responsible for many of the finest animated films of all time; The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Little Mermaid; the list goes on and on. Disney’s been making films ever since the 30’s and even though they have hit some rough spots from time to time, like in the 80’s or the early 2000’s (in the case of the latter decade, that’s mainly because of the rise of computer animation), they’ve managed to maintain a good level of quality over the years. Recently, the company’s been getting back into form with films like ‘Princess and the Frog’, ‘Tangled’, and ‘Wreck it Ralph’. While technically the latter two films were computer animated films, in certain ways (e.g. design, story) they felt like the traditional animated films that put the company on the map in the first place. The same can be said for their latest film, ‘Frozen’, loosely based off of Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale, ‘The Snow Queen’.

In the kingdom of Arendelle reside two sisters/princesses of the Royal Family, Anna (Kristen Bell) and Elsa (Idina Menzel). For years, the two have been separated from each other for one main reason. Elsa was born with magical ice powers and one day when the two sisters were younger, an incident between them as a result of Elsa’s magic resulted in her being locked away from the world and Anna losing any memory of her sister’s powers (but not the memory of her). On the day of Elsa’s coronation ceremony, her powers end up getting revealed to the people of Arendelle, leading Elsa to flee into the mountains. This then results in a massive snowstorm that covers the entire kingdom in endless winter. Hoping to set things right, Anna sets off with a mountain-man named Kristoff (Jonathan Groff), his reindeer Sven, and a living snowman named Olaf (Josh Gad) on a quest to find Elsa and hopefully bring an end to the endless winter, before it’s too late.

As you might expect from Disney, the animation is just top-notch in almost every aspect, from the landscape to the overall art design. As far as the characters are concerned, the movie has its fair share of memorable characters. Both Anna and Elsa were engaging characters and I really liked the sister dynamic between the two, which is where a lot of the film’s heart comes from. If I’m right, this is the first Disney film to actually have two female leads and on that note, it’s executed really well. Kristoff and Sven are also really memorable, mainly in part due to their interesting relationship, with Kristoff frequently translating Sven’s ‘thoughts’ through his facial expressions. However, the standout character would easily have to be Olaf the snowman. He has many of the most memorable and hilarious moments in the film. There are two characters that are really bland, though. The first is the prince Hans (Santino Fontana), who’s just your generic nice guy who Anna falls for at the beginning of the film. The other character is the Duke of Weselton (Alan Tudyk, who’s quite underused here). At first, it seems like they’re playing him off to be the main villain, but in the end they do nothing with him.

So how about the music, which was done by Robert and Kristen-Anderson Lopez (most known for their work on Broadway on shows like ‘Avenue Q’ and ‘Book of Mormon’)? All in all, it’s quite good. The Lopez’ experience in Broadway certainly translates to this film. Your mileage may vary on the idea of characters randomly going into musical numbers but overall, the songs are still really good. My favorite song would have to be 'Let it Go', which is Elsa's big solo after her powers are revealed to the people of Arendelle, as she no longer has to worry about keeping her powers hidden; she's now free. It does help quite a lot when most of the cast has had plenty of experience on Broadway (Menzel, Groff, Fontana, and Gad), and main star Kristen Bell especially holds her own in the musical numbers alongside the Broadway stars. All in all, the film has a great voice cast, even though some don’t have much to work with (e.g. Fontana and Tudyk, as I went over earlier).

‘Frozen’ is another excellent outing for Disney in almost every way. The animation is terrific, a lot of the characters are really memorable, and the film has a really nice soundtrack. However, the film did have two rather lackluster characters in Hans and the Duke of Weselton. If the writers gave more character development to them, I’d say this was arguably one of Disney’s finest films up there with classics like ‘Lion King’ or ‘Beauty and the Beast’. Still, this is one of their best films in the last few years or so (at least since 2000). Disney may be moving away from traditionally animated films but this isn’t necessarily a bad thing because their recent computer animated films (since 2010) still feel like the old-school animated films in many ways. All in all, this is just another fun and entertaining family film. What more should you expect from Disney?

Rating: 4/5

(I also want to give much praise to the terrific short, ‘Get a Horse’, which runs before this film. It’s a very creative blend of the old-school Disney animation from the 30’s and the modern computer animation of today. I’d say Disney should do something like this again. This would be a great idea for a 3-D show at Disney theme parks. Best Animated Short Film at the Oscars, maybe?)

 

Disney Retrospective: The 90's

If this post looks a little different to you, that’s because I decided to update it. Back in November 2013, I covered all of the films that made up Disney Animation’s ‘Renaissance’ period in preparation for the release of the then-newest Disney animated film, Frozen. As a result, this became the first of Rhode Island Movie Corner’s ‘Disney Retrospective’ series, though obviously it wouldn’t be until this year when I finally continued to make them. Well, actually, when it comes to that first Retrospective, it wasn’t really a complete look at the ‘Renaissance’ era because I didn’t include the one film that’s considered to be the one that started the whole era to begin with, 1989’s The Little Mermaid. Simply put, this is because I didn’t have the means to watch it at the time. This is before I had purchased the film on Blu-Ray that year, which was actually a Christmas Gift for my mom as it’s one of her favorites. So even though I did initially title the post as a ‘Disney Renaissance’ retrospective, recently I retitled it so that it would have a much more fitting title as it was only covering the films of the 90’s. However, I decided to work on this old post a little more as, looking back, I wasn’t exactly satisfied with how it turned out. Heck, some of the ‘reviews’ weren’t even a paragraph long. So as a result, I wanted to give these films much more proper reviews that are more in line with the reviews that I’ve done for the other Disney animated films. So today, join me as I review the Disney animated films of the 90’s, a decade which saw the studio rebound after the rather tumultuous decade for them that was the 80’s to produce some of their most beloved efforts in recent years, effectively re-establishing them as one of the best animation studios working today.

THE RESCUERS DOWN UNDER (1990)

Interestingly enough, in between two of the Renaissance’s biggest hits, The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast, there was a first for Disney Animation; a theatrically-released sequel. Specifically, the film in question was The Rescuers Down Under, the sequel to 1977’s The Rescuers. As part of my original preparation for this post back when I first made it in 2013, I had watched the original Rescuers first before watching Down Under and as previously stated in my 60’s/70’s Disney Retrospective, I felt that the original Rescuers was an ‘okay’ entry in the Disney canon that benefitted from likable leads but was a bit too sluggishly paced. That’s definitely not the case with Down Under, a film that trades in the gloomy Bayou setting of the original film for the bright and gorgeous landscapes of Australia. This film is much better paced compared to its predecessor and features some incredible animation for the time, which is especially showcased during the scenes that involve a rare giant eagle. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor reprise their roles of Bernard and Miss Bianca, respectively, and they are both excellent once again in regards to making them an incredibly likable duo. The film also has its fair share of memorable side characters, including Wilbur, the albatross brother of the character Orville from Rescuers and voiced by the late John Candy, and the main villain McLeach voiced by George C. Scott. With all of this in mind, The Rescuers Down Under is not only one of the best animated sequels ever made, it’s also one of the studio’s most underrated efforts. As the result of a lackluster opening weekend, the film’s marketing was pulled, resulting in this becoming a Renaissance film that completely went under the radar, which is a shame because it’s a really good animated film.

Rating: 4.5/5

BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991)

This is one Disney Renaissance film that needs little to no introduction. It was so well-received upon its initial release in 1991 that it ended up becoming the first animated film to ever be nominated for Best Picture, an accomplishment that, since then, has only been accomplished by 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, both made by Pixar and released under the Disney banner. And rightfully so as Beauty and the Beast really is one of Disney Animation’s finest efforts. To quote the classic Disney film Mary Poppins, it’s ‘practically perfect in every way’. It has great animation and great music courtesy of Disney’s go-to songwriter Alan Menken, from ‘Be Our Guest’ to ‘Gaston’ to the title song. Belle is easily one of the best Disney princesses and the romance that forms between her and the Beast is really well-handled. The film takes its time to establish a connection between them instead of just immediately having them fall in love, as was admittedly the case with some previous Disney romances. There’s also plenty of memorable side characters as well, including the Beast’s servants, all of whom have been turned into household appliances due to the curse that an enchantress put on the castle that turned the Beast into the creature he is today, and the film’s main villain Gaston. As many other people have pointed out, Gaston is a character who, in any other film, would’ve easily been the hero of it all. And yet that’s not where this film goes with his character, instead portraying him more as a selfish and egotistical ‘town hero’ who tries to woo Belle. All of this makes him a really entertaining baddie. And as a result, the film as a whole is pretty much an animated masterpiece. It’s easy to see why this film ended up becoming the first animated film to be nominated for the highest honor at the Academy Awards.

Rating: 5/5!

ALADDIN (1992)

Me and my friend Matt Goudreau (writer for ‘The Young Folks’ and ‘Nerd Stash’) have always described this film as ‘a Disney film for boys’. With its emphasis on adventure, swordplay, and fantasy, Aladdin is yet another classic from Disney Animation. In fact, I can safely say that it’s pretty much one of my personal favorites. Those aforementioned elements of adventure stories are handled perfectly here and are backed by terrific animation, a great story, and a terrific cast of characters. Aladdin is a very likable protagonist as is his romantic other, Princess Jasmine. The two of them form a really sweet romance and have terrific chemistry with each other. Of course there’s also the film’s terrific villain in the form of the devious Royal Vizier Jafar, the sinister sorcerer who has many tricks up his sleeves which he uses in his attempt to take over the city of Agrabah. Speaking of genies, however, obviously the most notable character in the whole film is the Genie. Simply put, Robin Williams gave us not only one of Disney’s best characters but one of the best characters in film period with the lovable and pop-culture referencing Genie, who has ‘phenomenal cosmic power’ but ‘itty-bitty living space’. Obviously his pop-culture references are very much anachronistic but they still provide us with plenty of great humor. It was most certainly one of Williams’ greatest performances. And thanks to him, as well as everything else I’ve gone over here, Aladdin is a terrific entry in the Disney canon. It’s easily in my Top 10 when it comes to Disney’s animated films. As for my personal favorite, though…

Rating: 5/5!

THE LION KING (1994)

When it comes to my personal favorite Disney animated film, that honor currently goes to 1994’s The Lion King. This is a Disney film that I legitimately watch at least once every year. I love pretty much every single aspect of this film. I love the epic scale and scope of the story and the animation very much matches that, capturing the majestic plains of Africa perfectly. I love the film’s soundtrack. This includes both the film’s collection of songs courtesy of Elton John and Tim Rice and the film’s epic score by Hans Zimmer. The latter is quite arguably the most famous musical score of any Disney film and is very much capable of giving one goosebumps. Elton John and Tim Rice’s songs are also great as well. In fact, this may be my favorite Disney soundtrack as I do love all of the songs, from the epic opening tune that is ‘Circle of Life’ to the laid-back anthem that is ‘Hakuna Matata’. I love this film’s cast of characters. Simba, voiced excellently by Jonathan Taylor Thomas as a youth and Matthew Broderick as an adult, is a terrific lead, he has a terrific foil in the film’s main villain, his uncle Scar, voiced phenomenally by Jeremy Irons, and James Earl Jones’ Mufasa is just a total badass. Simple as that. And the big scene involving him? Man, talk about an emotional gut-punch. Of course there’s also the film’s great cast of side characters, including the unforgettable duo that is Timon and Pumbaa. I could go on and on but I think you folks understand where I’m getting at here. Now do I think it’s the absolute ‘best’ Disney film? Eh… I’m not really sure if I can go that far but it’s most certainly my personal favorite. It’s just an epic masterpiece from beginning to end.

Rating: 5/5!

POCAHONTAS (1995)

Interestingly enough, apparently Pocahontas was intended to be Disney Animation’s ‘bigger’ film compared to The Lion King, which was apparently being handled by their ‘B-Team’. Well at the end of the day that ‘lesser’ film ended up becoming one of the biggest animated films of all-time whereas Pocahontas… Eh. This may or may not be a controversial opinion depending on who you ask but unfortunately I feel that Pocahontas is the weakest of the ‘Renaissance’ era. The main reason for this is simple; the film as a whole is rather dull. And I’m not just saying this as a result of my most recent re-watch of it. If I recall, I even found this film to be rather boring as a kid. Both the main characters, Pocahontas and John Smith, are rather bland, even when the latter is voiced by Mel Gibson. The same can be said for the film’s main villain, Governor Ratcliffe. Basically, he’s just a ‘greed’ villain and nothing else. The best characters in the film are the cast of animal characters, who initially were to be able to talk but that changed when John Candy, who was set to voice a turkey character named Redfeather that ended up getting cut from the film, passed away. Aside from the animals, at the very least there are some redeeming qualities to this film. For one thing, the animation is, as expected, quite nice. Not only that but the film’s soundtrack, once again done by Alan Menken, is pretty solid, which includes ‘Just Around the Riverbend’ and the film’s Oscar-winning song ‘Colors of the Wind’. Unfortunately, though, that’s not really enough to save this film from being one of the weaker installments in the Disney canon. I’m not going to go in any detail about how much this film reflects actual Native American history, which quite frankly based on what I’ve heard it doesn’t, but at the very least it’s not Disney’s worst. But at the same time, it’s not really one that I can easily recommend either.

Rating: 2.5/5

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1996)

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is easily one of Disney’s darkest outings. In fact, it’s kind of amazing that this film managed to squeak by with a G rating despite its dark imagery, frequent mentions of hell and eternal damnation, and the lustful nature of the main villain towards the female lead. And that’s even after all of the changes that had to be made from the source material to even get that rating in the first place. But this actually kind of ends up being the reason why Hunchback is a very entertaining entry in the Disney canon. It’s quite cool to see a Disney film that has the guts to tackle some darker material and it does result in some nice atmosphere through the animation. Though with that said, the film does try and make an effort to maintain the usual family-friendly tone of a Disney film. In this case, it’s done through Quasimodo’s gargoyle friends; Victor, Hugo, and Laverne. I don’t dislike this trio but admittedly they do kind of give the film a rather uneven tone at times. But the film does make up for its tonal shifts with the usual great animation, a likable cast of main characters, and an enjoyable array of songs courtesy of, you guessed it, Alan Menken. But easily the best part of the film is its villain; Judge Claude Frollo. Frollo is simply one of the most enjoyably vile villains that Disney’s ever created and also a very fascinating one. For all of the terrible things that he does in this film, from murdering Quasimodo’s mother to lusting after the beautiful gypsy Esmerelda, he always keeps asserting that it’s the right thing to do as a man of the Christian faith. Simply put, Frollo’s a terrific villain and as a result, Hunchback of Notre Dame is most certainly a highly memorable Disney flick. Admittedly this is obviously a rather hard one to recommend to younger audiences due to its darker material but it’s still a very unique entry in the Disney canon regardless.

Rating: 4/5

HERCULES (1997)

While Disney’s Hercules obviously takes its inspiration from Greek mythology, suffice it to say this film doesn’t really adhere much to the actual legend of the divine hero of whom the film is named after. Plus, the film admittedly could prove to be a bit much for people as a result of its style. Said style is basically a very flashy Broadway/Vegas look, with the animation being directly inspired by the work of famous English cartoonist Gerald Scarfe. However, even with all of that said, this is actually another personal favorite of mine when it comes to Disney films. I like the film’s cast of characters, from Hercules to his love interest Megara to his trainer Phil, voiced by Danny DeVito. Obviously though the big standout of the bunch is the villain, Hades. Voiced excellently by James Woods, Hades is definitely one of Disney’s funniest villains, acting very much like a fast-talking sports agent. As for the film’s soundtrack… I love it. ‘Zero to Hero’ is always a pretty darn fun tune but for me the best song of the soundtrack is Hercules’ solo ‘Go the Distance’. Simply put, it’s one of the most inspiring Disney songs of all-time and it perfectly encapsulates Hercules’ journey in this film to realize who he’s really meant to be. So yes, while it’s certainly not perfect, Hercules is still a really fun entry in the Disney canon. Just don’t go into it expecting a completely accurate adaptation of the story of Hercules.

Rating: 4/5

MULAN (1998)

Mulan is definitely one of the more underrated films of the Disney Renaissance. For one thing, it features a badass female lead in the form of Mulan. Excellently voiced by Ming-Na Wen, Mulan serves as an excellent role model for young girls, nobly taking her father’s place in the Chinese army in order to protect him when it becomes clear that his warring days are over. It’s also really fun to watch her try and fit in with the rest of the soldiers while posing as a man, resulting in plenty of great humorous moments. The film also has its fair share of memorable side characters, from Mulan’s loyal dragon sidekick Mushu (voiced by Eddie Murphy) to some of her fellow soldiers, namely the trio of Yao, Ling, and Chien-Po. Admittedly, though, the main villain, Hun leader Shan-Yu, is the weak link of the film. Simply put, he’s basically just a straight-forward ‘silent warrior’. But even with the weak villain, the film really does shine, which of course is primarily thanks to its main heroine. It has a really great soundtrack highlighted by Mulan’s beautiful solo ‘Reflection’ and the fun training montage song ‘I’ll Make a Man Out of You’. The animation is quite nice as well, with perhaps the best scene in the film being the scene where the Huns attack the Chinese Army on the snowy mountainside. Said scene required the creation of new animation software in order to create the massive Hun army and the result really is quite spectacular. I also feel that the animation does a nice job in capturing the beauty of China. In short, like I said before, I think this film is pretty underrated. I say that because when it comes to the Disney Renaissance, admittedly you do hear more about the first few films of the 90’s than you do the ones that came out during the second half of the decade. But when it comes to those latter films, Mulan is definitely the best of the bunch.

Rating: 4.5/5

TARZAN (1999)

Controversial opinion in three, two, one… I really love Phil Collins’ soundtrack for this film. I say ‘controversial’ because in recent years I’ve found that not many people are fans of the soundtrack. From what I can gather, the main reason why is that instead of having the film’s characters sing the songs, they’re almost entirely sung by Collins save for a few exceptions. But I’m actually not too bothered by that because I think his songs are quite excellent. I love pretty much all of them; ‘Two Worlds’, ‘Son of Man’, and of course the film’s Oscar-winning tune ‘You’ll Be in My Heart’. I think they work fine in the film but I understand if people don’t exactly agree. However, I do think they’re phenomenal songs on their own. Anyway, as for the film itself, it’s another really entertaining entry in the Disney canon. The animation is excellent, especially when it comes to scenes in which Tarzan swings through the jungle like a skateboarder. Tarzan himself is a likable lead as is Jane, who manages to overcome her character’s usual status as the ‘damsel in distress’. Admittedly, though, the main villain, Clayton, is probably the weakest part of the film. He’s another one of those villains who’s only really motivated by greed. However, at the very least, out of all of the Disney villains who were basically just ‘greedy’ villains, I will say that Clayton’s probably my favorite of the bunch. And sure that’s not exactly saying much in the long run but hey, at least it’s something. All in all, Tarzan is a very enjoyable entry in the Disney canon. It served as the final film of the ‘Renaissance’ era and in that regard, I think it ended the era on a pretty darn solid note.

Rating: 4/5

And that’s the end of this Disney Retrospective on the Disney animated films released during the 90’s, the era known as ‘the Disney Renaissance’. Thanks for following along with me on this updated series of reviews. As always, what are your thoughts on the Disney films discussed here? Be sure to sound off in the comments below. And be sure to also check out the other Disney Retrospectives that I’ve done since this post was first published all the way back in November 2013. The links to them will be provided below.

Disney Retrospective: The 2000's to Present

Disney Retrospective: The 60's and 70's

Disney Retrospective: The 80's

Thoughts on last night's episode of 'Family Guy'

(Warning: MAJOR SPOILERS!!)

For a very long time, one of my favorite cartoons was ‘Family Guy’. I consider the first six-seven seasons of the show as ‘classic’; the writing may not have always hit well, but it had plenty of memorable characters and moments, the latter thanks in part to the random cutaway gags that occurred in each episode. However, in recent seasons, the show has declined in terms of its overall quality. The cutaway gags were getting stale and only a few characters were working while some were getting really annoying. I stopped watching the show precisely after a line in the episode ‘Friends Without Benefits’ where Lois mentions that she’s put Stewie ‘in the oven’ before and I haven’t watched a single new episode since… until last night. This newest episode caught my attention when it was announced that one of the main characters would be permanently killed off. I wasn’t really supportive of the idea of killing off one of the characters who we’ve come to know over the many years of the show’s existence, but I was intrigued nevertheless. However, this ended up being one of the worst half-hours of television I have ever seen.

The episode starts off harmless enough, with Brian and Stewie immediately getting into trouble, like they normally do. Right away, they’re being chased by a bunch of Native Americans because Stewie used his time machine to go back in time to Jamestown, where he gave weapons to the Natives. After the two get things back to normal, Stewie then destroys his time machine, knowing that it’s caused way too much trouble before. All seems to go well until Brian and Stewie start to play street hockey outside of the Griffin house after they find a street hockey net in the junkyard where they have the time machine destroyed. Stewie heads back inside for a quick moment before Brian is… run over by a car. Yes folks, it turns out that Brian is the family member that ends up dead.

…Where do I begin? I wasn’t really supportive of the idea to kill off one of the Griffin family in the first place, but of all of those characters, why the hell does it have to be Brian? When Family Guy was beginning to go into decline, Brian and Stewie were the only good characters left on the show. They had such a good camaraderie, making any episode where they were not the main focus duller by comparison. Why not kill off Meg or Chris? In the case of the former, considering the character’s status on the show, it would have been a little obvious but she wasn’t really contributing much to the show anyway. Even then, that just proves my point in that the death of a Griffin was just the wrong idea. But you know, it could have worked had they handled the event properly.

And that’s my biggest problem with this episode… they don’t. The death happens just five minutes into the episode, leaving a lot more things to happen. The writers tastelessly try to add in a few gags during Brian’s funeral, a scene that should have never had them to begin with. There is a glimmer of hope that this isn’t permanent when Stewie tries to rebuild his time machine. However, he learns that his supplier can no longer provide him the materials he needs… so he just gives up on it. After that, there is not a single mention of the time machine and even worse, the writers try to make us forget that Brian ever existed by having the family adopt a new dog. I’m sorry, writers, but you won’t make us forget one of the best characters on the show. The new dog, Vinny, sucks by the way. I know this is only the first episode he’s in, but I don’t care. No matter what happens in future episodes (which I won’t be watching, for the record, not even the crossover with ‘The Simpsons’ which sounds interesting), you cannot replace Brian.

This has to be one of the biggest ‘f*** you’ moments in the history of television. Of all of the things that Family Guy has done, why did they have to kill off one of their best characters and what’s even more insulting is how the writers try to make us forget about him when there’s no chance of hell of that ever happening. I am officially done with ‘Family Guy’. I was going to give this episode a chance, despite the fact that they were going to kill off a main character (I’m especially against it now considering which one they got rid of), but this was just a tasteless episode. The reason why I stopped watching the show in the first place was because of a tasteless line, but this is way worse. (Sigh) Well, at least we have re-runs of the older episodes.

R.I.P. Brian Griffin for you will be forever missed.

(UPDATE: Since posting this, I read about how a future episode apparently still revolves around Brian. Will this mean that he's not going to stay dead? I kind of hope he'll be back, but even if that happens, that just makes this episode even more insulting.)

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) review

The first ‘Hunger Games’ film was a huge success both critically and commercially when it came out back in March 2012. However, while the film was very good thanks in part to the writing and Jennifer Lawrence’s outstanding performance in the lead role, there was room for improvement, namely in regards to the shaky camera work and fast editing during the actual Hunger Games. That’s not to say the film wasn’t bad. It’s always been the case with most book-to-film franchises in that most of them get better as their series go on (e.g. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). It’s the responsibility of the first film to set up the universe and characters, and the first did a great job as far as that was concerned. So now all eyes are on the first sequel ‘Catching Fire’ to continue the story. In the director’s chair this time around instead of Gary Ross is Francis Lawrence (no relation to the leading lady), director of ‘Constantine’ and ‘I Am Legend’, who impressed Lionsgate enough to be chosen as the director for the final two Hunger Games films, parts 1 and 2 of ‘Mockingjay’. He’s certainly the right man for the job, because while I do really love the first ‘Hunger Games’, ‘Catching Fire’ is far superior to it in almost every way.

After their victory in the 74^th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) return home to District 12 before heading off on their ‘Victory Tour’ through the other districts of Panem. However, while both of them are looking to get on with their lives, they soon learn that their defiant actions in the Arena, where they became the first dual winners in the history of the Games, have inspired rebellions all over Panem. This now makes Katniss not only the symbol of hope for the rebellion, but also a target of the Capitol and she is warned by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) to make it look like her actions were done out of her supposed love for Peeta and not as an act of defiance; otherwise her loved ones will be killed. But soon, Katniss and Peeta are forced back into the arena for the 75^th Annual Hunger Games due to the 3^rd Quarter Quell, an event that takes places every 25 years where the Games are affected by a unique rule. In this case, all of the Tributes are past Hunger Games winners, making things even more challenging for Katniss and Peeta this time around.

The biggest advantage that this film has over its predecessor is perhaps the fact that, with a bigger budget, F. Lawrence is able to expand on the world of Panem in ways Gary Ross couldn’t necessarily do with the first one. We get a greater sense of this world and, more importantly, the rebellion that is now happening in it. We don’t necessarily see a full-out rebellion as it’s more focused around Katniss and her reluctance to be the symbol of hope for the districts, but we clearly see that it’s beginning to take shape. Obviously, this rebellion will become much more important in the next two films. Once the film gets into the arena for the 75^th Hunger Games, you folks will be pleased to know that the shaky cam and fast editing of the first film is no longer a problem. It’s all terrifically shot and, while I’ll be spoiler-free about what happens during these Games, the whole arena is very unique, which makes it a little more interesting this time around.

Once again, Jennifer Lawrence shines in the role of Katniss Everdeen, the reluctant symbol of the rebellion who is also sort of traumatized by her experiences in the previous Hunger Games, which we see early on when Katniss suddenly has a vision of one of the tributes from the last film while hunting with Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is far more developed in this film, mainly because the writers actually did remember to use the plot-point of how Katniss was playing up their relationship in the arena to win over the audience; the previous film omitted a key scene at the end where Peeta learns about this. Because they have far more substantial roles to work with in this film, Hutcherson and Hemsworth are able to get into their roles more. The idea of a ‘love triangle’ is there, but it’s not overplayed. Like the last film, this one has a great supporting cast with great performances all around from both returning characters (Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow, etc.) and new ones (Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair, Jena Malone as Johanna Mason, etc.).

While I do love the original ‘Hunger Games’ film, despite its flaws, ‘Catching Fire’ is superior to the original in almost every way. Now with the whole idea of ‘establishing’ the universe out of the way, thanks to the first film, this sequel allows us to explore this world even more and with that, we’re able to see the growing rebellion that is beginning amongst the Districts of Panem, making things quite suspenseful at times for the main characters. The cast once again brings their all to it and once the film moves into the Arena this time, the shaky camera work and fast-editing from the first film is non-existent which leads to a much more exciting Hunger Games. Francis Lawrence certainly proves that he’s the right man for taking over this franchise, more specifically the two-part finale, ‘Mockingjay’. I’m a little hesitant on the idea of splitting the final book into two films. It’s not because of who’s involved behind the camera, or the quality of the material; it’s just if there's enough material to work with like ‘Harry Potter’. We’ll just have to wait and see when ‘Part 1’ comes out next November.

Rating: 5/5!

The Hunger Games (2012) review

(Note: The following is a newly written review, updated from an earlier review that I did on this film back in March 2012 on Rotten Tomatoes. I would’ve just reposted that original review here, but looking back I realized that it wasn’t really that good and, also, a little biased. It mostly just consisted of me making numerous comparisons to another certain young adult film franchise which was also adapted from a popular book series. Because of this, I decided to write a new review just in time for ‘Catching Fire’. Enjoy!)

(Also, as a bit of a warning, there are some Spoilers regarding the ending.)

We all know how J.K. Rowling’s ‘Harry Potter’ series, which was already a major success in book form, became even more successful once the books were adapted to film beginning in 2001. In the wake of Potter, many studios tried to cash in on the success of the franchise by adapting other popular book franchises. However, for the longest time, no one really had any luck at creating ‘the next Harry Potter’, despite the fact that some of these movies had really good source material to work with, like ‘Eragon’ and ‘Stormbreaker’. The first book-to-film adaptation that managed to become as big as ‘Potter’ was ‘The Twilight Saga’ but, in the opinion of this reviewer, this was mainly because of the popularity of the source material and not because of its quality; in other words, the movies were terrible. Now, both ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Twilight’ have come to an end, meaning that it’s time for a new franchise to step up and become the next ‘Harry Potter’ and that franchise is ‘The Hunger Games’, based off of the best-selling book series by author Suzanne Collins. Sure, in retrospect, the first adaptation of this franchise isn’t perfect, namely due to some decisions that were made in the transition to film, but overall this first film does a good job at setting up its universe and, more importantly, its lead heroine.

In the future, the nation of Panem exists in a post-apocalyptic North America consisting of the main city of The Capitol and its 12 neighboring districts. After the 12 Districts (previously 13) started a rebellion, The Capitol, after defeating the rebels and apparently destroying the 13^th District, initiated a new annual event called ‘The Hunger Games’, a televised event where 24 ‘Tributes’ (one male and female from each district) fight to the death until only one remains as the winner. During the year of the 74^th Hunger Games, District 12 resident Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to be the female Tribute for the District after her sister Prim (Willow Shields) is initially chosen. Along with fellow District tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss is brought to the Capitol where she and Peeta are put to the test as they must compete with Tributes who have had more experience than them and have better ‘odds’ at winning.

Like most book franchises, ‘The Hunger Games’ serves as the film in its series whose job is to set up the universe and its characters, and as far as that is concerned, director Gary Ross does a very good job at establishing the unique world of Panem and bringing it to the big screen. The key themes of the novel, like the idea of oppression and critiques of both government and the media, are executed well on film. In terms of staying faithful to the source material, the film may not maintain the first-person narrative from the book, as told by Katniss, but I do like that it gives more attention to those behind the scenes, namely President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).  But as for the action once the actual Hunger Games get started, it leads to probably the biggest problems that some have with the film; a lot of shaky camerawork and fast editing. There’s no denying it; it is pretty noticeable, but considering that this film probably wouldn’t have been able to maintain a PG-13 rating considering how violent things get during the Games, it’s sort of understandable as to why they went this route.

But really the best part about this whole film is its main character, Katniss Everdeen. Compared to a certain female lead in another young adult franchise, Katniss can certainly hold her own and is not dependent on a man. This film belongs to Jennifer Lawrence, who does an outstanding job at conveying Katniss’s emotions. She’s backed up by a terrific supporting cast that includes Woody Harrelson as Katniss and Peeta’s mentor Haymitch, Stanley Tucci as Hunger Games commentator Caesar Flickerman, and Lenny Kravitz as Katniss’s stylist and ally Cinna. Sure, this movie does have one of those ‘love triangles’ that you see a lot of in these kinds of movies and the two male leads may not be as ‘developed’ as Katniss, but both Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, who plays Katniss’ friend Gale (who, for the record, is only on screen for like 10 minutes), do good enough jobs with what they have to work with. It may seem like Lawrence and Hutcherson don’t really have good chemistry but that’s sort of how it played out in the book; Katniss played up the romance in order to gain sympathy from the audience, ultimately resulting in her actually beginning to have feelings for Peeta. However, I do have to add that, as faithful as they were to the book, the filmmakers left out a key scene in the end where Peeta learns about this, which would have helped developed their relationship in future movies. Hopefully ‘Catching Fire’ doesn’t forget this crucial plot-point.

In the end, ‘The Hunger Games’ may not exactly be perfect, mainly due to some shaky camerawork and fast editing during the actual Hunger Games. But as a whole, this film does benefit from some very good writing and, for the most part, very well-developed characters. The one in particular who stands out here is Jennifer Lawrence. Not only is the character of Katniss a well-developed female heroine, but Lawrence carries the movie on her back with the help of a talented supporting cast. Overall, Gary Ross did a very good job at establishing the universe and the characters, but I am curious to see what Francis Lawrence brings to the series with ‘Catching Fire’. Considering that he will be returning for both parts of ‘Mockingjay’, it seems like Lionsgate was impressed by his work on the first sequel. ‘Catching Fire’ is currently getting highly positive reviews, but we’ll just have to wait and see if it manages to be superior to its predecessor.

Rating: 4.5/5

 

12 Years a Slave (2013) review

Since 2011, around 5 to 10 films earn Best Picture nominations at the Oscars. It’s common to expect some major upsets to happen during Oscar night, but it seems like the race for this top honor usually comes down to two films almost every year. Some of the most recent examples of this trend include ‘Argo’ and ‘Life of Pi’ last year, ‘Hugo’ and ‘The Artist’ in 2011, and ‘The Hurt Locker’ and ‘Avatar’ in 2009. This year is no different. Having been both a critical and commercial success since being released back in early October, Alfonso Cuaron’s ‘Gravity’ has been receiving major attention during ‘Oscar season’. However, the film that everyone says WILL be the film that wins Best Picture this year is Steve McQueen’s ’12 Years a Slave’. The tale of a free man forced into slavery can be brutal at times, but you can’t deny its status as one of the best films of the year. It achieves this status by not letting up and showing the full detail of the horrors of slavery and is backed up by an outstanding ensemble cast.

’12 Years a Slave’, based on the autobiography of the same name from 1853, is the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) who, in 1841, lived as a free man in Saratoga, New York with his family, making a living as a violinist. One day, Solomon is approached by two men named Brown and Hamilton (Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam) who offer him a job in their ‘traveling’ circus. Solomon accepts the offer but after a night in Washington D.C., Solomon suddenly finds himself sold into slavery and unable to tell anyone that he is a free man. With a new name, Platt, and status as a ‘Georgia runaway’, Solomon now has to endure his new life as the film follows him on his 12-year journey as the property of various owners, including the kindly preacher William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) and the cruel and vicious Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender).

Most slavery movies might end up avoiding showing some of the severe extremes that slaves went through. This film does not do that; it clearly emphasizes how horrible it was for those who were in slavery at the time. More importantly, it shows that it could corrupt even the nicest person. As you might have guessed, there were people like Edwin Epps who were down-right sadistic and cruel but then you have someone like Solomon’s first owner, William Ford. This preacher is actually nice to his slaves, and yet he’s still a slave owner. Even someone as nice as Ford was involved in this horrible act. That’s the reason why this film works so well; it doesn’t skimp on anything. Because of this, the film is incredibly hard to watch, mainly in part to how McQueen shoots it. He lets a lot of shots run for a while; one scene in particular involving a hanging is very effective and intense. But that was exactly how life was like for slaves back then.

This film also has a terrific ensemble cast, and two actors in particular are surefire contenders for acting awards at the Oscars. In the lead role, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a very quiet and reserved performance as Solomon Northup. He does a fantastic job at conveying the character’s emotions simply through his facial expressions, which makes his performance all the more powerful. That is because his character realizes that if he even tried to say anything, he would be beaten or worse, killed. Equally outstanding in this film is Michael Fassbender as Edwin Epps. This may be an utterly despicable, heartless, and repugnant human being (his wife Mary (Sarah Paulson) is equally sadistic), but Fassbender just gets into the role and manages to get a lot out of it. These two headline an outstanding cast, most of whom appear in minor roles, including Brad Pitt as a friendly carpenter and Paul Giamatti as a slave trader. But there are some who really stand out in more substantial roles, like Benedict Cumberbatch and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o as Patsey, a fellow slave who befriends Solomon and is lusted after by Epps.

Everyone is saying that this film will win Best Picture at the Oscars, and if it does, I won’t be surprised because this film is easily one of the best of 2013. It’s extremely hard to watch at times, but its unrelenting nature truly reflects what really happened back then. A terrific ensemble cast is led by two heavy contenders for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor in Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender, respectively. This is a really big deal in the case of the latter because it would be a travesty if this turns out like last year’s Oscars, where Leonardo DiCaprio got snubbed for his outstanding work in ‘Django Unchained’. That better not be the case this year with Fassbender, who has been snubbed by the Academy before. My friend Matt gave this film a proper nickname, ‘White Guilt: The Movie’. I guarantee you’ll be feeling that while watching this movie, along with a few other emotions.

Rating: 5/5!

Thor: The Dark World (2013) review

One could say that Marvel took a very huge risk in developing a Cinematic Universe, something that we have really never seen before in the world of film. But in the end, they did succeed at their goal, creating a massive universe for their superheroes to live in. How did they do it? They made a whole bunch of solo films focusing on the characters that would later come together to form ‘The Avengers’. However, of these heroes, one’s first solo outing was perhaps the biggest risk Marvel had faced up to that point. The idea of a ‘Thor’ movie was tricky. Not only did Marvel had to work around the fact that the Asgardian God of Thunder did not come from Earth but from the mystical realm of Asgard, but they also had to worry about making it work without it being too campy. Thankfully, 2011’s ‘Thor’ was far better than expected thanks to the Shakespearian influence from director Kenneth Branagh and the charisma of star Chris Hemsworth in the title role. Sure, it had some flaws, namely the fact that the film really didn’t explore the universe of the Nine Realms that much, but nevertheless it was an extremely entertaining film.

Thor and his brother Loki would return again for ‘The Avengers’, with the latter establishing himself as one of the premier villains of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a huge improvement from his rather underdeveloped role in ‘Thor’. In fact, if Tom Hiddleston’s surprise appearance at this year’s Comic-Con proves anything, it is that Loki has become perhaps the most popular character in the MCU. Now, everyone’s favorite gods return for the next MCU film, ‘Thor: The Dark World’. This time, Branagh is not directing; instead, it is Alan Taylor. He has been mostly known for his work on television, but when one of those shows is ‘Game of Thrones’, it’s clear that this man was qualified for the job. Overall, Taylor manages to improve on Branagh’s film in regards to the action, visuals, and for doing a better job at immersing us in this universe. It’s still not entirely perfect, mostly because of some pretty weak villains, but as a whole, ‘Thor: The Dark World’ is another great entry in the MCU, thanks in part due to the performances from its two leads.

After helping the Avengers save Earth from an alien invasion led by his brother Loki (Hiddleston), Thor (Hemsworth) returns home to Asgard where he continues to bring peace to the Nine Realms while Loki is imprisoned in the Asgardian dungeons. However, things start to change when, back on Earth, Thor’s love interest and astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) becomes infected by a substance known as Aether. This draws the attention of the race known as the Dark Elves, led by Malekith the Accursed (Christopher Eccleston), who attempted to use the Aether to take over the world many eons ago before he was stopped by Thor’s grandfather Bor. Sensing that she is in danger, Thor brings her to Asgard in order to find a way to get the Aether out of her. However, when the Dark Elves begin to attack, Thor is forced to team up with Loki in order to stop this new threat.

In a lot of ways, ‘The Dark World’ improves on some of its predecessor’s biggest problems. Most of ‘Thor’ was spent on Earth instead of on Asgard. Now, that’s necessarily a bad thing because the stuff on Earth was well-handled in terms of helping Thor grow as a character, but we never really got a chance to immerse ourselves in the universe that is the Nine Realms, or Thor and Loki’s home world of Asgard for that matter. That’s not a problem here. More time is spent off-planet and we get a better sense of the universe. Also, from a visual perspective, it does actually look nicer than it did in ‘Thor’. Taylor also works better in regard to action scenes while still maintaining the light-hearted atmosphere and humor that worked so well in Branagh’s film.

However, this film suffers from one major problem. The villains in this film are really weak. In fact, dare I say it they’re the weakest villains to date in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and considering what we’ve seen from these movies, that is saying a lot. The great Christopher Eccleston is wasted in the role of Malekith, who spends most of his time brooding and speaking in Elvish. There could have been some really good character development in terms of the relationship between him and Thor, seeing how he was thwarted by the latter’s grandfather but sadly we don’t get that. His second in command Algrim (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) is a more threatening villain. Even then, and I’m not spoiling anything, they don’t do much with him either, even when he transforms into a stronger character known as Kurse in the comics.

But on the bright side, the film is well-acted. As Thor, Hemsworth is once again excellent as he continues to maintain Thor’s charming and likable personality. We also see that Thor has grown as a character since the last film (‘Thor’ that is, not ‘The Avengers’) because he isn’t as brash as he was in the first film. Equally great here is Tom Hiddleston as Loki. Hiddleston just owns the role and even steals the spotlight from Hemsworth at times. In fact, the best scenes in the entire movie are when the two of them are on screen together. Natalie Portman unfortunately gets reduced to a ‘damsel in distress’ role for this film, but her chemistry with Hemsworth improved quite a bit. As for the rest of the cast, some do get more substantial roles than what they had in the previous film (like Rene Russo as Thor and Loki’s mother Frigga and Idris Elba as Heimdall) but some are still stuck in minor parts, like Sif and the Warriors Three. There could’ve been some good romantic tension between Jane and Sif for Thor’s affections, but it kind of seems like that stuff ended up on the cutting room floor.

I can’t really call ‘Thor: The Dark World’ the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sure, Alan Taylor manages to improve on some of the flaws of the previous film but this film really suffers from having perhaps the weakest villains in the MCU, underusing Christopher Eccleston in a role that could have had so much more to it. Thankfully, the film is still very entertaining, mainly thanks to the charismatic performances from Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston as Thor and Loki, respectively. It seems likely that another ‘Thor’ film will happen, probably after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’. Hopefully for the next one the villains are far better. Considering how this film ends (again, not giving anything away), how about they make Loki the main villain again? Perhaps we can get a Loki spin-off as well?

Rating: 4/5

(P.S. Don’t forget to stay through the credits for there are two post-credits scenes in this one, the first giving us a glimpse as to what’s down the road in the MCU (‘Avengers 3’, I’m guessing considering what route Joss Whedon is apparently taking with ‘Age of Ultron’.))

Olympus Has Fallen vs. White House Down

Earlier this year, I did a post where I talked about the ‘copycat films’ trend that has been happening in Hollywood over the last few years, where two films that have almost exactly the same premise come out the same year. At the end of that post, I briefly talked about the two ‘copycat films’ that were released this year, which were both centered around invasions at the White House: Antoine Fuqua’s ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ and Roland Emmerich’s ‘White House Down’.  Not only do both films revolve around a takeover of the White House by terrorists, but they also feature a John McClane like character who saves the day a la ‘Die Hard’. Since that post was published, both of these films have hit theaters and I have seen both of them, so now it’s time to discuss these two films and possibly decide which one is the better film.

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

‘Olympus Has Fallen’ sort of took me for surprise. When comparing these two films, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ is far more intense, not just because of the fact that this movie was rated R compared to White House Down’s more audience-friendly PG-13 rating; a serious tone is maintained throughout the entire course of the film. In a way, it works and in some ways it doesn’t. With a premise like this, it seems like everyone involved in this film was taking it a little too seriously because let’s face it; this is sort of a silly premise. While that is sort of a flaw, the main character Mike Banning surprisingly has a good amount of depth to him. He was once a member of the President’s Secret Service, but left the job after an incident that resulted in the death of the First Lady. For the record, both of these films’ leads are in a similar situation; they’re trying to turn their lives around and they ultimately do… by saving the President in the process. In the case of this movie, it’s less cliché than in ‘White House Down’ (more on that in a bit). On that note, the best thing about this whole movie is Gerald Butler’s performance in the lead role. To put it simply, these kinds of movies are the ones where he’s at his best. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well and in the end, while ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ takes itself a bit too seriously, it’s still pretty entertaining.

Rating: 3.5/5

WHITE HOUSE DOWN

Right off the bat, the key difference between these two movies is their overall tone. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was more serious while ‘White House Down’ doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s more lighthearted and in this one, the President even gets involved in the action. However, this film ends up being even more cliché than ‘Olympus’. This film doesn’t pull many surprises. One cliché in particular that I’m getting rather sick of is the ‘deadbeat dad’ plotline… mainly because it’s been in most of director Roland Emmerich’s movies (‘2012’, ‘Independence Day’, ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, etc…). On the bright side, like with ‘Olympus’, this film benefits from the performances from its leads; in this case, Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx. The two work off each other very well, which helps to ease the tension during some of this film’s more intense moments. All in all, they help make this movie entertaining despite its flaws; most of which stem from the writing.

Rating: 3.5/5

How these two films fared:

As far as critical reception was concerned, both of these films received rather mixed reviews from critics. On Rotten Tomatoes, ‘White House Down’ has the better ratings (50%), but just by 2% over ‘Olympus Has Fallen’. The former also earned more at the box office (over $200 million), which may have been because of the film’s summer release date (the latter was released in March). However, with a budget of $150 million, it’s considered to be a bit of a flop. Meanwhile, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ grossed more than twice its budget (which was a more modest $70 million) and a sequel is currently in development that will take place in London.

Overall winner:

This is a tough one because, as shown by my ratings for these two films, I’m not really sure if one of these films is better than the other. Neither is particularly original, so it all depends on the way each film is executed. From a writing standpoint, ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ has a better developed lead character while ‘White House Down’ is full of clichés. However, I’d say ‘White House Down’ was more entertaining. ‘Olympus Has Fallen’ was surprisingly very intense, but it felt like it was taking itself way too seriously. ‘White House Down’ is a more straight-forward popcorn flick. So in the end, I’ll give the slight edge to ‘White House Down’ but for the record, I do think both of these films are pretty entertaining. It just depends on what you’re looking for; a super-intense action thriller, or a more light-hearted one.

Marvel Cinematic Universe Retrospective

The next film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ‘Thor: The Dark World’, is set to hit theaters this upcoming weekend. So, instead of just doing a single review on its predecessor, I decided to do a look back at the entire Cinematic Universe as a whole from the first Iron Man film back in 2008 to ‘Iron Man 3’, which was released back in May. Since I started this blog back in May of 2012, I’ve actually only covered two of these films; The Avengers (which was the very first review that I posted on this site) and Iron Man 3, for which I did both a regular review and a Spoiler Post regarding the film’s controversial twist. So now it’s time for me to talk about the other five films that were released before ‘Avengers’; Marvel’s ‘Phase One’. Since I’ve talked about Marvel’s success in creating this Cinematic Universe multiple times already, I’ll leave it at that because otherwise you’ll know what I would say next. So, let’s take a look back at the past seven films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

IRON MAN (2008)

I can easily sum up the reason why this movie is so good in three simple words; those three words are ‘Robert Downey Jr.’. This is easily one of the best casting decisions in the history of superhero films, if not the best. If it wasn’t for him, I have a feeling that this movie wouldn’t have turned out as good as it did. Don’t get me wrong; this is still a really good movie, but it is Downey’s performance as Tony Stark, billionaire turned superhero, which really elevates the material. Admittedly, there’s really not much I can say about this film other than it is a top-notch superhero film and it did its job at establishing what was to come in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It hit all of the right notes in terms of story and character development and as such, it certainly stands as one of the best superhero films of the last few years.

Rating: 5/5!

THE INCREDIBLE HULK (2008)

Marvel first brought the character of the Hulk to the big screen in 2003 with Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’. However, the film was sort of a flop at the box office so Marvel decided to reboot the franchise, which would now be a part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This Hulk film, directed by Louis Leterrier, is much better than its predecessor for one key reason. Lee’s film was more focused on the drama than the action. I’m not necessarily saying that’s a bad thing because I do think that the dramatic material was at least well-written, but it made the film rather boring at times. This one takes a more ‘action-packed’ route and while that might mean that the screenplay is a little lacking at times, it is still a very entertaining film. Edward Norton and Tim Roth both do excellent jobs as Bruce Banner and Emil Blonsky (the latter becoming ‘The Abomination’ by the end of the film), respectively. While Norton was eventually overshadowed by his successor, Mark Ruffalo, in ‘Avengers’ in terms of their respective performances, he still does a great job at displaying the character’s struggles and emotions. As for Liv Tyler and William Hurt as Betty and General Ross, they do okay jobs but I think that Jennifer Connelly and Sam Elliott were better in the roles in Lee’s ‘Hulk’. Still, this ‘Incredible Hulk’, while not perfect, is at least better than the previous ‘Hulk’ film. I do look forward to seeing another Hulk film with Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner. However, that film unfortunately might not happen for a while, at least until after ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’.

Rating: 4/5

IRON MAN 2 (2010)

It’s common knowledge that sequels are never as good as the original. Iron Man 2… is one of those movies. Now, while I do rank this film at the bottom when it comes to ranking all of the Cinematic Universe films, I don’t think it’s a bad movie; far from it in fact. It’s very entertaining as most superhero films are and Robert Downey Jr. is still fantastic as Tony Stark. So what’s the main problem, then? Well, it seems like the filmmakers went a little too far in terms of ‘raising the bar’, as is usual with sequels. There are just too many characters in this movie, which means that some get less development than others, namely the main villain Whiplash. Mickey Rourke is very good in the role, but at one point he is reduced to being the pawn of another villain, Justin Hammer. On the bright side, Sam Rockwell steals the show whenever he’s on screen but unfortunately that means that Whiplash gets thrown to the sidelines. One thing that could have helped was if S.H.I.E.L.D. wasn’t really overused in this film, which I feel they are. I’m fine with the inclusion of Black Widow but I feel that Nick Fury should have just stayed as a brief cameo. There are some other minor gripes that I have, one of them being that Tony is a bit too arrogant in this film. Now, I can see where they were going, because there’s this other plotline that Tony’s dying from palladium poisoning because of the substance’s use in his arc reactor, but I’m not sure that plotline went far. Still, despite its flaws, ‘Iron Man 2’ is still an entertaining superhero film but it could have been much better.

Rating: 3.5/5

THOR (2011)

This film was easily the biggest risk that Marvel was taking during ‘Phase One’ because this could have ended up being a very campy film, which would not have been good for Marvel if Thor was to be one of the Avengers. But in the end, this film turned out to be much better than expected, mainly because of two reasons. One is director Kenneth Branagh, whose experience with Shakespeare translates to this film. The themes of honor and family are constantly present in the film and are very well-handled. The other is the performance from Chris Hemsworth in the titular role, who flawlessly displays both charm and arrogance as Thor. The rest of the cast is great as well, although some could have been given a little more to do, including Natalie Portman as Thor’s love interest Jane Foster and Tom Hiddleston as Loki, though for the record in the case of the latter that’s just in this film. Obviously, that changes with ‘Avengers’. Another positive about the film is the surprising amount of humor in the screenplay and it works very well. My only major complaint with the film is that if feels like it is mostly setting up what’s to come later. For a film that takes place in a universe like the Nine Realms, we only see three of them; Asgard, Jotunheim, and Earth… and we spent more time on Earth than in the other two worlds. The one thing that I want to see in the next film is that they explore this universe more. Thankfully, the trailers seem to indicate like that will be the case. But as a whole, the first ‘Thor’ movie is another great entry in the Cinematic Universe.

Rating: 4/5

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER (2011)

Out of all of these films, ‘Captain America’ probably seems the closest to an old-school summer blockbuster, being set in the 40’s during WWII for the majority of the film while still having some of the more modern storytelling aspects from the other Cinematic Universe films. This film manages to find the right balance of the old and the new; director Joe Johnston is at his best whenever he does period films, like ‘Rocketeer’ or ‘October Sky’ and this film is no exception. Like with the other Marvel films, the filmmakers did a great job at casting the lead hero, in this case Chris Evans as Captain America/Steve Rogers. As Rogers, Evans is extremely likable and charismatic, and his ‘never give up’ attitude is very admirable. Even after he becomes Captain America, he maintains that likable persona throughout the film. This film has perhaps the best ensemble cast (aside from ‘Avengers’ of course) of Phase One. How can you go wrong with a cast that includes Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, and Stanley Tucci? This film also one of the best, shall we say, ‘superhero couples’ in Cap and Peggy Carter (played by Hayley Atwell). Their chemistry feels genuine and this helps make the ending scene of the film quite emotional. All in all, while I can’t say ‘The First Avenger’ is the best of the Phase One films, it is my personal favorite.

Rating: 5/5!

THE AVENGERS (2012)

For a more ‘detailed’ review of the film, here are links to both my original review and the post where I listed this film as the best film of 2012 (which I still stand by, for the record):

Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2012/05/avengers-2012-review.html

Top 10 post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-top-3-films-of-2012.html

Do I really need to talk about this one? You probably know what I’m going to say, seeing how I named this my number one favorite film of 2012. So, I‘ll keep it short. ‘The Avengers’ is one of the finest superhero films to date. You really have to hand it to Marvel on this one. They took their time, developed their universe and the characters, picked the right cast to play these heroes, and finally brought them all together under the direction of Joss Whedon for one of the most epic films to date. Whedon, a director who does a great job at working with a large cast, gives equal time and development to each of the main heroes. No single hero is more important than the others and some get better development that what they had in previous movies, namely Black Widow and Hawkeye. Tom Hiddleston also establishes himself as a premier super villain in the role of Loki. Admittedly, it takes a while for the film to get going but once it finally does, it’s incredible. The screenplay is full of witty dialogue, leading to a lot of funny moments. My personal favorite scene; when Hulk and Thor crash a Leviathan down into Grand Central. Once they get up, Hulk suddenly punches Thor off-screen. It’s so unexpected and yet so funny at the same time. The bottom line is that if you haven’t seen this film yet, I strongly urge you to do so because it is one of the best of the superhero genre.

Rating: 5/5!

IRON MAN 3 (2013)

Here are the links to the two ‘Iron Man 3’ posts I did back in May:

Original Review: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-2013-review.html

Spoiler Post: http://rimoviecorner.blogspot.com/2013/05/iron-man-3-spoiler-talk.html

Like many 2013 summer blockbusters (e.g. Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel), ‘Iron Man 3’, despite receiving solid reviews from critics and becoming the second Marvel film in a row to gross over 1 billion at the box office, has received a rather mixed reception from audiences. From what I’ve seen, some of this negativity is a little unfair, namely from those who hated it just because of the controversial twist surrounding the film’s ‘main villain’. Yes, it is a big change from the comics, but it actually did work from a story perspective. As for another ‘complaint’ about where S.H.I.E.L.D. and the other Avengers were during the events of this movie, I can answer that… they had their own s*** to deal with. Remember that the biggest reason why ‘The Avengers’ worked so well is because Marvel took their time and developed their universe and the characters in it by doing solo superhero films. Not every Marvel film can be ‘The Avengers’ and directed by Joss Whedon; solo superhero films are still effective. Besides, aren’t the ‘Iron Man’ films the highest grossing solo films in the Cinematic Universe?

Okay, rant over, back to ‘Iron Man 3’. The reason why the film works so well is because it has a solid character-driven story, as Tony tries to deal with the anxiety from his near-death experience at the end of ‘Avengers’. This is perhaps Robert Downey Jr.’s best performance in the role; he still maintains the arrogant attitude that Tony is known to have, but it’s dialed down (which is a huge improvement over ‘Iron Man 2’) because of what he went through. This is a Tony Stark story; the fact that he’s not in the Iron Man suit as much doesn’t hurt the movie (another sort of unfair criticism if you ask me). The suit doesn’t make the man. It is the man who makes the suit. The ending, while definitely raising questions of how Tony will play into the next two Avengers films, serves a fitting conclusion to both this film and the whole trilogy itself.

Another big improvement over 2 is that Don Cheadle finally gets time to shine in this film and his camaraderie with Downey Jr. is much better. The whole cast is terrific, particularly the two main villains. As for Ben Kingsley, he succeeds at working with the major twist surrounding his character, being very intimidating while he’s The Mandarin, and goofy when he’s the actor Trevor Slattery. As for Guy Pearce who, spoilers, is basically the main villain, he’s also great. I like how the character was set up as an effective ‘demon’ for Tony. My one complaint about the film is that the female parts are rather underwritten. Yes, Gwyneth Paltrow still has fantastic chemistry with Downey Jr. and she does don the Iron Man suit for the first time in the film… for about 2 minutes. Aside from that moment and the finale, she’s once again stuck in the damsel in distress role the whole time. Rebecca Hall is stuck in a similar situation; not given anything to do. In fact, the movie really doesn’t make it clear about whose side she’s really on, especially considering that they kill her character off. But in the end, ‘Iron Man 3’, while not the best Iron Man movie, comes pretty damn close to being on the same level as the first film.

Rating: 4.5/5

As an added bonus, here are my further thoughts on ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’ now that a few more episodes have aired and my thoughts on the first trailer for ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’.

Agents of SHIELD- 5 Episodes In

A couple of weeks ago, I gave a very positive review of the pilot for ‘Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.’, where I praised the show’s more humanistic approach to the Cinematic Universe and for its terrific cast, especially Clark Gregg as Coulson (obviously) and Chloe Bennet as Skye. Now, there have four more episodes since the pilot and at the time I am posting this, the next episode will be airing tonight. Unfortunately, this show has now been hit with the same curse as ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’; pretty solid critical reviews, but audiences have been mixed and, like ‘Into Darkness’, I’ve been hearing more negative reviews than positive.

Overall, I stand by my thoughts on the series. Sure, it may not be the best TV show ever but it continues to do a great job at developing its characters and the universe that they now live in after the events of ‘Avengers’. As far as the main cast goes, the only characters I think who haven’t really got much opportunity to shine in the show so far have been Fitz and Simmons. Both De Caestecker and Henstridge are doing great jobs, but for the most part, they’ve only played minor roles so far in the series. On the other side of the spectrum, Agent May, Agent Ward, Skye, and Coulson have been given more to do so hopefully they give more to Fitz and Simmons down the road. I do like that this series has actually started to establish future villains; one of whom being the character of Graviton (played by Ian Hart, who you might recognize as Quirrell from ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’). I also appreciate how the writers are still using the Extremis serum plot-point from ‘Iron Man 3’. It’s good to see that this series is continuing to establish its place in the Cinematic Universe.

Like in the pilot, the writers continue to do a very good job in developing its characters and, more importantly, some of the mysteries surrounding them; the biggest being whether or not the Coulson we know really died in ‘Avengers’ and the reason why he somehow miraculously survived. In Episode 4, ‘Eye-Spy’, the team tracks down a thief who turns to be a protégé of Coulson. At the end of the episode, the protégé speaks with May and mentions that ‘something’ is different about Coulson, giving further speculation to what really happened after Coulson was stabbed by Loki. Could he be a life-model decoy, perhaps? Another interesting storyline is revealed in Episode 5, ‘The Girl with the Flower Dress’, where Skye reveals to Coulson why she joined his team. She’s looking for her parents, who were connected with S.H.I.E.L.D. When Coulson mentions that she might not like what she finds, I get the feeling that this could spell trouble down the road. Could this possibly lead to some future villains on the show?             

Admittedly, the second episode was a little lackluster compared to the pilot (except for the awesome cameo from Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury), but recently the show has really started to take off and it’s become one of my favorite shows currently on television. I’m excited to see what routes the writers take in future episodes and how they might connect with the upcoming Marvel films, namely ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’ because of how big of a role S.H.I.E.L.D. will play in that film. I do hope this series stays running for a while. The show did get a full-season order from ABC, but with the decreasing ratings and the increasing ‘meh’ response from audiences, a second season may be doubtful. I for one hope it does happen, especially considering how unlucky Whedon shows have fared in the last decade (‘Firefly’ after only 1 season and ‘Dollhouse’ after 2).

Speaking of Winter Soldier…

Captain America: The Winter Soldier- First Trailer Review

The first thing that hit me about this trailer is that it seems to eliminate the biggest fear I have about this movie; if directors Joe and Anthony Russo could handle a big summer blockbuster (albeit one coming in April, but that’s beside the point) when they have been mostly known for television work. On that note, the action looks really incredible and the film looks great from a visual standpoint. My other big praise about this trailer is that the film really feels like a true sequel to ‘The Avengers’. No offense to ‘Iron Man 3’ and ‘Thor: The Dark World’ (I’m guessing not much S.H.I.E.L.D. involvement in the latter, though I won’t hold that against it) but considering the level of involvement that S.H.I.E.L.D. has in this film, this one feels the closest to being the follow-up to ‘Avengers’. I’m also interested in seeing how they handle the more political aspects of the story because Cap is not entirely supportive of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s methods as we saw in ‘The Avengers’.

My sole complaint is how they portray the Winter Soldier in this trailer. For those of you who haven’t read the comics, the Winter Soldier is actually Captain America’s best friend James Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) who apparently died in ‘First Avenger’. As you can see, he actually survived and is brainwashed to become an assassin. The trailer doesn’t make any mention about how Barnes is the Winter Soldier so unless you knew about it going in, you might not recognize who the Winter Soldier is. However, I’m pretty sure that they will establish the relationship between him and Cap in the movie. But aside from that, the movie looks very good and I think it actually has the potential to be the best of the Phase Two films.

A review of ‘Thor: The Dark World’ will be out soon.