Movie Review: Captain America- The Winter Soldier

When I first saw the trailer for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," I was hopeful and yet also worried. I enjoyed "Thor: The Dark World" but worried that the new Marvel would be a dud like "Iron Man 3." After hearing good reviews about it, I went out and saw it last weekend.


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD


"The Winter Soldier" takes place a few years after the events of "The Avengers." Steve Rogers is working for S.H.I.E.L.D and also adjusting to the modern world. He, however, is suspicious of Fury's secrecy and about S.H.I.E.L.D making new helicarriers that could wipe out thousands of people at a time. After Fury is attacked by a mysterious assassin known as the Winter Soldier, the Captain, suspicious of Fury's boss Alexander Pierce, comes under suspicion and is forced to flee from the company. He must team up with Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow and Sam Wilson/The Falcon to find out the truth and discovers that an old enemy from his past is alive and well.

The story was a bit difficult to understand in some places, namely because it is a conspiracy with different players. I was confused about whether Fury was really involved in the pirating attempt or if he was being framed, but a second viewing may clear this up. I generally liked the plot and the tie-ins to the first "Captain America," though there were a few inconsistencies. I also wasn't sure about the leading up to the last, big battle and if the helicarriers were a mere test run, but again a second viewing may explain this better. I did like the humor that was thrown into the film; much like "Thor: Dark World," it was well-placed and added a lighter element to an otherwise serious story. I also liked that the story was moved from the World War 2 era to the modern era, which made it a bit darker and more realistic in tone.

The characters were also good. Scarlet Johansson had a bigger role as Natasha Romanoff, and she and Chris Evans formed a good partnership; on a related note, I was relieved that there was no romance between the two. Robert Redford was a good choice to play the sleazy, scheming Alexander Pierce. Sebastian Stan also did an excellent job as the brainwashed Winter Soldier, a good rival for the Captain. Fury had a bigger role, though I was a bit unsure about his role in the entire scheme though that was more of a plot issue. Anthony Mackie plays Sam Wilson, who teams up with the Captain and Natasha; he wasn't a bad sidekick, though he could have been better developed.

The effects for the film were good. More than half, I believe, was not CGI, which proved for good action scenes. The action scenes were well-done, and the pace of the movie was generally good.

I found myself thoroughly enjoying "The Winter Soldier." I found it a worthy addition to the Marvel universe and am definitely looking forward to seeing it again.

I give the film four out of five stars.

Movie Review: Gravity

While on spring break this year, I did some traveling across the US and watched "Gravity."


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD


"Gravity" is a film set in space inspired by the Kessler Syndrome (a theory about space debris). Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) are on a mission dealing with the Hubble Telescope when debris from a Russian satellite destroys their shuttle and sets them adrift in space. After the two are separated, Stone must find a way to get to another space station or die in space.

The story, mostly seen from Stone's perspective, is easy to follow and pretty much is about a situation where everything in space goes wrong. The film is definitely intense and keeps you interested; I spent most of the movie sitting on the edge of my seat, wondering what would happen next. The only scene that I didn't like was when it looked like Kowalski ended up miraculously surviving but instead turns out to be a hallucination who urges Stone not to give up; I can't really explain it, but I wasn't overly fond of how Stone found the motivation to keep living.

The actors were well-chosen. I liked Clooney as the talkative, charming Kowalski who acts calmly and bravely in the midst of the chaos. Bullock did an excellent job as Stone, who is afraid and doesn't know what to do; she acts like all of us who have absolutely no experience in space, and it makes you sympathetic to her and what she feels.

The film is visually beautiful, and the effects are amazing. The views of earth in orbit and the stars are stunning, and the effects for no gravity and how things react in no-gravity are well-done. What really impressed me was how realistic the sound was. In most space movies like "Star Wars," you get sound in outer space; however, the director Cuaron does an accurate portrayal so scenes where the space stations are being destroyed are silent, except for any sound that the characters make, and this makes those scenes even more intense.

All in all, I enjoyed the film. It definitely deserved all those awards that it was nominated for and won. It is a bit too intense to be something that you watch over and over again, but it's certainly worth an occasional viewing.

I give it four and 1/2 out of five stars.

Sherlock: Season 3 Review

I admit that I am a fairly late-comer when it comes to BBC's "Sherlock" series. I had heard about it but had not shown any interest until the past six months when I (and the rest of my family) got hooked on it thanks to Netflix. Generally, I have enjoyed the six episodes of the first two episodes and was chomping at the bit for season 3.

Unfortunately, I came away feeling more than a bit disappointed in what I saw in season 3.

I will examine each episode individually and then the entire season as a whole.


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD



"The Empty Hearse" opens up two years after Sherlock's supposed suicide from the top of St. Bart's. It is revealed that he has been unraveling Moriarity's vast network, and now he is summoned back to London to deal with a terrorist strike. But first, Sherlock will need to tell John that he is alive if he wants to get his friend back into the game.

When I first watched the episode, I admit that I felt a bit let-down for several reasons. First (and these are not in any particular order), I was not sure what to make of Sherlock's "fan club." "Supernatural" is the only show that I know of where the writers can use episodes to poke fun at or cater to their fan base, which is hilarious; however, using something similar for "Sherlock" did not seem to fit in given the tone of past episodes. Second, the episode seemed less focused than previous ones. Sherlock uncovering the terrorist attack was a minor subplot while there were other subplots of his spat with John, John's kidnapping and rescue, his day with Molly (which includes a mysterious skeleton) and his parents' visit. Not to mention that some of the subplots did not feel like they truly belonged in the episode and certain scenes felt the same way, especially the whole Sherlock vs. Mycroft in "Operation" and "let's see who can out-deduct each other." In the end, it did not come across as being a particularly well-written and well-organized episode. Third, another problem I had was with the whole scene towards the end where Sherlock manipulates the situation to apologize to Watson and then laugh at him for believing they were about to die; it seemed like a cop-out for a tense situation and resolved the spat between the two a little too neatly. While I am happy that this thread was tied up in the first episode, it could have been better resolved.

"The Sign of Three" takes place about six months after "The Empty Hearse" and deals with John and Mary's wedding day. While Sherlock must give a best man speech, he must also figure out an unsolved murder and its connection to the wedding.

This episode also had its own problems. First, it was too disorganized. The episode is constantly jumping back and forth between wedding preparation, a stag party, Sherlock's mind palace, an attempted murder, then the wedding reception. It was confusing and made the plot a bit hard to follow. Some writers can jump around like this without confusing the reader/ viewer, but unfortunately this was not the case. Second, the connections of attempted murder, the dating ghost case, and the wedding was not very clear. It seemed shoddily thrown together and did not logically move from one to the other. A related issue was when Sherlock uses his mind palace to figure out what connects the five women who dated the "ghost"; he eliminates the possibility that they all work for the same person, but then it somehow turns out that that possibility was the correct one. It left me scratching my head, even after a second viewing of the episode. Third, the pacing was off. The speech took too long (mostly because more than half of it is flashbacks), and I kept wondering when it was finally going to be over.

"His Last Vow" takes place at least a couple of months after "The Sign of Three" (given Mary's progressing pregnancy). Sherlock goes to master blackmailer Magnusson to get back some incriminating letters when he discovers that Mary has a past that she is trying to hide and which Magnusson is fully aware of.

In the past finales for "Sherlock" have left me on the edge of my seat, wondering what is going to happen next and then at the end of the episode leaving me wanting more. This is the first time I did not feel that way about a "Sherlock" finale. First, the plot had issues. It kept jumping between Magnusson as the villain and Mary as a semi-antagonist, which made me wonder which plot was the more important one: the blackmail or the woman with a dirty secret. Also, the original case of Sherlock trying to get back the letters reminded me of Sherlock trying to get incriminating photos in "A Scandal in Belgravia," and it bugs me when a show has two episodes that have a similar plot. Second, I was not a big fan of what they did to Mary. I really liked Mary's character in the first two episodes and believed she fit in quite well with both Watson and Sherlock. Suddenly turning her into this assassin on the run from her past did not fit with her character and made me dislike her afterwards, even by the end of the episode. It also seemed resolved too neatly that she and Watson made up, and things go on as they have ever since the beginning of season 3. Third, the episode also does some jumping around though not as bad as "Sign of Three." Maybe it was done for dramatic effect, but it made had the opposite effect on me. Fourth, I didn't like the finale. The mysterious Magnusson could have been a good villain, but I was disappointed to see him killed off. Sherlock is sent into "exile" (which would literally be a death sentence for him) and then a few minutes later is summoned back because it appears that Moriarty has miraculously returned from the dead.

Now for an overall look at season 3.

I came into season 3 with high hopes for the same quality that fans have come to expect from "Sherlock." I understand that the season was delayed because Cumberbatch and Freeman had some big-screen roles, but I think the delay in the season caused the writers to lose momentum. As a result, the writing quality went down this season.

One problem was what I will call "strange camera scenes." It is sort of hard to describe, but sometimes "Sherlock" has had scenes that seemed suddenly thrown in/ have an abrupt transition from the previous scene and which take a second viewing for me to figure out why the scene was where it was (there were two for me in "A Scandal in Belgravia": when Irene understands how the hiker died and when Sherlock is returning to Baker Street after he realizes Irene is alive). There were quite a few in season 3, which made things a bit confusing; one big offender was Sherlock's thoughts when he was being shot by Mary. Which brings me to a related issue. In the past, the viewers have occasionally got a glimpse into Sherlock's mind and how he thinks (like his mind palace in "Hound of Baskerville," which was cool), and even if it is quick, it generally makes sense. This season, however, it seemed a lot more scatterbrained and did not make a lot of sense, like when Sherlock was being shot.

A second problem was the plots generally were a mess. All of the episodes have big plot holes (granted, I have found holes in previous "Sherlock" episodes, but I have been willing to forgive smaller mistakes) or have too many smaller plots running alongside each other to keep things coherent. The pacing was also off. We first see Magnusson "introduced" in "The Empty Hearse," he is briefly mentioned, and then he is the big baddie for the finale; it seemed like he had too little screen time and like he was just thrown into the finale only to be killed off. Then you have small plots that seem thrown in and had little bearing on the rest of the episode, like the allusions to Sherlock's drug habit (it has briefly been implied in the premiere but has never been mentioned again, so it seemed abruptly added to the finale).

On a related note, I did not like the portrayal of the villains this season. Moran could have been given a lot more detail, but he was skimmed over in favor of the other mini-plots (I couldn't help but compare him to the cabbie in the show's premiere; we don't get a lot of screen-time for him or realize who he is until late in the episode, but he came across as a much better-written and convincing villain than Moran). The murderous photographer was not well-portrayed either, but I think this is because the episode itself was poorly written. Then we have Magnusson. I liked him very much as a villain and was rather disappointed to see him killed off in the finale. Then Moriarty's face begins popping up on screens all over Britain. It felt like the writers were bored with Magnusson and decided to shock the fans. My big issue is that we saw Moriaty shoot himself and fall down dead; Sherlock's death could have been explained easily because a. we saw him jump and [b]something[/b] land on the pavement, but there was wiggle room for him to survive b. in the Sherlock Holmes canon, he survives his plunge into Reichenbach Falls, so fans know he has to survive. So while I am willing to accept Sherlock's survival, I am having a much harder time with Moriarty's. It makes me wonder if Moriarty is really, really back or if someone else is just using his image and he is still dead. Whatever the case, I hope the writers have not written themselves into a corner.

I was saddened by the lower quality of season 3, and I hope this is not a sign that the show is going downhill. Especially if there is another long delay between seasons. I will keep my fingers crossed that "Sherlock" can return to the quality of the first two seasons, and hopefully there will not be another delay.

Movie Reviews: Monsters University

As a child and a teen, I loved Pixar's movies and grew up on their stuff. As an adult, I liked their newer offerings less but still love the earlier films, which are among those that remind me of my childhood. After being disappointed or at least not very impressed with "Cars 2" and "Brave," I was unsure what to expect of "Monsters University" and delayed seeing it until yesterday.



WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD



"Monsters University" is a prequel to "Monsters Inc." It starts off when Mike Wazowski is in elementary school and has dreams of becoming a scarer. He works hard and gets accepted into the Scaring school on the campus, where he meets slacker James Sullivan and timid scarer Randall Bogs. Tension between Mike and Sully erupts and causes both of them to be flunked out of their scaring class by the stern Dean Hardscrabble. Still wanting to pursue his dream, Mike reluctantly teams up with Sully and an unpopular fraternity to compete in a series of games, and the group learns about teamwork and friendship.

The story was easy to follow, though it was by no means as clever or memorable as the original film. It was good, but the last part of the film where Mike, desperate to prove that he can be a scarer like Sully, enters the human world and wrecks havoc with Sully until both manage to return thanks to Mike's quick-thinking. The last part, to me, felt like it was an attempt to keep the film going and to maintain some consistency with the first film. I appreciate that the writers did not want to make it that easy for Mike to win the games, but it seemed a bit shoddy to me and could have been handled better. The movie did not seamlessly fit in with the original, but there were some references back to the original that were handled well without making it seem like they were just ripped from "Monsters Inc" like sequels tend to do.

Only three characters in this film are from the first one: Mike, Sully, and Randall. They seemed, however, less developed than the original ones; perhaps it was because this is meant to be when they were younger and is meant to lead into what they will later become, but it was not as good. However, there are several new characters and much more interaction among them, which makes this film different from the original. The Oozma Cappa fraternity has cute and fairly memorable characters, and Hardscrabble made for a stern and somewhat creepy dean. And there is plenty of humor with several characters playing off of college stereotypes.

The visuals are interesting as Pixar introduces all kinds of new and different monsters onto the campus. However, they are not as amazing as the ones in the original.

One problem I did have with the film is that some aspects of it reminded me of "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." Namely the following: Hardscrabble's entrance by dramatically closing the curtains, the Scaring Games (which reminded me of the challenges that Harry and the other contestants faced), Mike getting into trouble when entering the competition (like Harry when his name came out of the goblet), and Mike and his teammates being humiliated by the other competitors (again, like Harry being bad-mouthed by his fellow students) to name a few. I am not sure if this was intentional or not, but the two seemed a bit similar.

I started watching the movie having low expectations for it, but I was a bit surprised. It is not up there with Pixar's earliest films, but it has its memorable and redeeming moments. Definitely good for a rental and for seeing it now and again.

I give it 3 and 1/2 stars out of five.

Movie Review: Thor- The Dark World

I was never raised on comic books and comic book characters (though I was aware of characters like Batman, Superman, and Spider-man). However, that hasn't stopped me from enjoying the Marvel Avengers series that started several years ago. After seeing Iron Man 3, however, I grew a bit worried that perhaps the franchise was showing signs of dying in terms of quality, which made me a bit worried about Thor: The Dark World. Nonetheless, last night I went and saw it.



WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD



"Thor: The Dark World" picks up about a year or so after Thor has returned from Earth with Loki in chains and the Tesseract. Since the Bifrost is now repaired, Thor and his warriors have been busy putting an end to wars in the Nine Realms, but he still misses Jane. Jane, in the meantime, still misses Thor but is trying to move on. While in London, she accidentally finds herself transported to a mysterious place and possessed by an ancient evil weapon known as the Aether. Thor finds her and brings her to Asgard, where the Dark Elf leader Malekith (who had previously possessed the Aether and plans to use it to unleash darkness on the entire universe) attacks the world, looking for the Aether. When tragedy strikes, Thor reluctantly turns to his imprisoned foster brother Loki to help him destroy the Aether and save the universe from being destroyed.

The story was fairly easy to follow, but some of the scientific aspects were a bit off, which left holes in the overlying plot. Like where exactly Odin's father Bor buried the Aether and how Jane managed to find it. The idea of the Nine Realms converging every five thousand years was a cool one, but it didn't make sense in that how Earth managed to survive the last time the convergence happened. Despite a few issues, the writing was pretty good. Even though the story has a fairly dark tone, there was plenty of humor to balance it out; much like "Avengers" and quite unlike "Iron Man 3," the humor was well-placed, in-character, and memorable (I absolutely love the scene where Loki imitates Captain America).

The characters were generally well-done. Hemsworth did good as Thor, and Hiddleston was excellent as Loki; I liked their interaction in this film, as we never got to see a lot of direct interaction in their previous films together. I also liked the briefly expanded roles for Frigga (whose strong, motherly personality comes out more) and for Heimdall. Erik Selvig (who has gone crazy because of the events of "The Avengers") and Darcy (whose humor is still there) also have somewhat bigger roles. The only character I wasn't happy with was Jane Foster. I know Portman can act, but her role as Jane is not one of her better ones, and I don't think there's much chemistry between her and Hemsworth either.

Visually, this film is stunning. I loved the new look for Asgard and a more detailed look into its people and its Viking-esque culture; that and watching it get destroyed by Malekith made Asgard feel more real and less like a shiny, untouchable city on the other side of the universe. I enjoyed seeing parts of the other Nine Realms, which were beautifully done. The makeup and effects for the Dark Elves (not your Tolkien-esque elves) and other creatures were also impressive. And, not to mention, that it was nice to see another city other than New York get destroyed in the last battle of the film.

Oh, and a brief shout-out to Brian Tyler, who did the soundtrack for this film. It was amazing, and I am looking forward to listening to it again.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed "Thor: The Dark World," way more than "Iron Man 3." Even though its different from its predecessor, I found it memorable and believe it is a worthy addition to the "Avenger" movie series canon.

I give it four out of five stars.

Movie Review: The Awakening

Every year, my family has a tradition that on Halloween we watch a scary movie. Some years, it's been something like "Jaws" or "Ghostbusters," neither of which really classify as "scary movies." This year, thanks to instant Netflix, we decided to watch a movie called "The Awakening," which is a few years old, but it was new to me.



WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD




"The Awakening" is a film done by BBC and stars Rebecca Hall (known for her roles in "The Prestige" and "Iron Man 3") as Florence, a woman living in 1920's England who makes a living debunking the supernatural, like seances and houses that are supposedly haunted. Florence is approached by Mallory (portrayed by Dominic West), a teacher at a boarding school for boys who says that the place is haunted by the ghost of a boy who was murdered years earlier, back when the school was a house owned by a wealthy family. Florence, of course, believes science can explain it and goes, but she finds herself believing that something really is wrong. Meanwhile, she seemingly has her own demons to deal with.

The story had an interesting premise and could have been something good, but I found that it quickly grew twisted and was filled with red herrings. At first, it looked like your average ghost/ haunted house movie with the unexplained happenings like a ghostly figure running around the school or mysterious voices when no one seems to be around. Then, after the first night, things started turning a little strange. Like the mysterious hand in the pond (was it the ghost's or Mallory's?), the ever-changing scenes in the doll house, and then the scenes where it seems like Florence is going insane or the people at the school seem to be manipulating the situation. It seemed like the scenes were added for the jump/creepy factor but like the writers did not really have anything in mind as to what was really going on. Then some scenes didn't seem to fit at all, like when Florence is attacked by Judd; I was confused as to what was going on, and it didn't seem to add anything to the overall story. Then, as it is in most stories like this, there is a big reveal. A boy Tom that Florence has befriended turns out to be the ghost of her dead half-brother, the secretive maid Maude turns out to be Tom's mother and Florence's long-lost nanny who wanted her to remember what happened when she was younger, and the supernatural happenings were either Tom running around or Florence's repressed memories of a murder-suicide from her childhood. It was all rather strange and didn't make much sense. This is in sharp contrast to "Sixth Sense" and "The Others," both ghost movies that were far more cohesive and made sense by the end of it. Then you have the last scene in the kitchen (which did not fit in at all) and the last scene of the movie which was extremely ambiguous (and not like Christopher Nolan's films) and fell apart.

Another problem I had was a couple of scenes with sexual/partial nude content that had no real place in being in the film. This includes Mallory's scene in the bathroom where he tends to his war wound, that long scene with Florence in the bathroom (before the creepy events start happening), and then the unnecessary sex scene, which falls into the category of "worst times to have sex." Those three scenes could have been redone or outright deleted, as they did not add anything to the film. It felt like they were added to give the movie its R-rating.

The characters were ok, but nothing about them was particularly memorable. I'm a bit haunted by Imelda Staunton's creepy housekeeper role and will never look at Miss Pole from BBC's "Cranford" the same way again. One thing that confused me about the chars is that Florence supposedly had a lover named Robert who died in World War 1, and Mallory also has the first name (and he ironically becomes Florence's lover) of Robert and who also fought in World War 1. Was Robert even real? If he was, then it was sloppy of the writers to have Mallory and Florence's lover have the same name.

Now for two positive parts of the film.

The camerawork and atmosphere was well-done. It reminded me quite a bit of the BBC period dramas and definitely had the creep-factor. Some of the silent shots that showed off the landscape or the school/house were also pretty. The choral soundtrack also added to the atmosphere, and I'll never sing "Be Still, My Soul" in church again without thinking of this movie. Unfortunately, these two things could not save the film.

In the end, I was disappointed. I had hoped that it would be something like "Sixth Sense" or "The Others," but "The Awakening" felt more like a shoddy attempt to imitate those two and couldn't stand on its own two feet. Which was a shame, because it could have been something much better.

I give it 2 out of five stars.

Movie Review: World War Z

This year saw several movies dealing with zombies or some kind of apocalypse, and so when I first saw the trailer for this one, I wasn't interested. Mostly because zombie movies tend to be rather gory and violent, and I don't like movies like that (a reason why I stopped watching "The Walking Dead" on TV). However, I heard that the movie was not that way, so I decided to watch it this evening.


WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD


"World War Z" starts off on an average day. Former UN investigator Gerry Lane (played by Brad Pitt) is living in Philadelphia with his wife and two daughters. While they're stuck in traffic one morning, the city breaks out into a massive panic, and Gerry realizes that people are being bitten and are turning into something that is not human. Gerry is practically blackmailed into working for the provisional US government to find the source of the mysterious "zombie" virus and takes an extended, action-packed trip to South Korea, Israel, and Wales, accompanied and aided by various soldiers and doctors and spending part of the time worrying about the safety of his family.

The story had a good concept though parts were poorly executed. My biggest beef was the abrupt changing in the last third or so of the movie. Gerry is originally sent out to find the source of the virus, but he soon changes his course of action to test out a theory of his that could help protect people from the ever-growing zombie population. So by the end of the film, we have a couple of suggestions of where the virus originated, but the thread is abruptly dropped. No cure is found either, though Gerry and the other doctors figure out a way to basically conceal people so that the zombies won't bite them and stop the spread of the virus. This left the movie feeling almost like a jumping-off point for future story lines, like it was just starting off a story but not finishing it. Another thing that bothered me was the zombie that happened to show up on the plane to Wales; the scene left me going "where the heck did he come from?"

Nonetheless, I liked the new direction that the writers took with zombies. Instead of the mindless, slow, cannibals of "Walking Dead" and popular culture, they're terrifyingly fast (but still brainless) and are merely looking to further spread the virus through biting other people. I also liked the whole "not biting people who would be too weak to transmit the virus" idea, but it does raise certain questions regarding the "virus" that the doctors created to hide people from the zombies (more precisely why they would inject themselves and then make their way to safety without dying of the illness, but that's beside the point). Another thing I appreciated is the lack of violence in the movie. While there is some, it's nowhere near "Walking Dead" levels or what I imagine to be normal for zombie movies.

The movie itself was fast-paced, and I was sitting on the edge of my seat for most of the time. I liked how the writers didn't explain everything at once (though if you've seen the trailers, you have an idea of what's going on) and that you learned alongside Gerry. In this sense it sort of reminded me of "Cloverfield," where you don't know what's happening but you get bits and pieces throughout the movie. Many of the scenes were rather intense, especially the nerve-wracking climax at the W.H.O. facility.

The characters were ok, though there was nothing too overly memorable about them. I appreciate the writers for not making Gerry into some kind of zombie-killing machine and for keeping him more innovative in getting out of tough situations. You feel bad when certain characters get bit or hurt in the zombie apocalypse, but very few characters survive the entire movie or are in it for very long.

Even though the story is a bit weak and raises questions at the end, I found this movie to be a good action-packed flick and something that I more than likely will watch again. If you don't like a lot of violence or gore and need an intense action movie, I recommend it.

I give it four out of five stars.