Reviews

Next time you take a roadside picnic and throw something away in the grass, take a moment to consider what happens next. Ants will come out to pick up and carry the crumbs away. Birds will peck at seeds and fruits. Maybe some badger will grab a wrapper and get his head stuck in it. Suppose you chuck an alkaline battery away, or a canister of oil? Mere leftovers for us become mysterious and deadly artifacts for lesser creatures.

This was the basic premise behind Arkady and Boris Strugatsky's book, Roadside Picnic. What if aliens landed on Earth and left some junk behind? People and governments would surely covet it. It could become a whole new kind of black market. But what effects would such artifacts have on lesser beings like us? 1979's Stalker adopts this premise into a one-of-a-kind vision. From its opening credits onward, the film is seeped in hard, gritty textures and drab colors. In this bleak setting, the nameless Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky, notably bald, scrawny, and kinda alien-looking) takes a job to escort two clients into the Zone--the place where a meteorite crashed and became quarantined by the military. One man is a writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) looking for inspiration. The other, a professor (Nikolai Grinko) looking for scientific discovery. Despite the heavy guard and the threat of never coming back, the three break through and progress through the Zone. We never see any psychical threats, but the trio always react with fear and anxiety over invisible traps and unseen entities. Passing through dark corridors and ruins, truths are unearthed about each character, which puts their whole endeavor into question and endangers them all.

This is a long and mopey film. Gone are the pulp fiction roots of the original story--Tarkovsky sought to craft a meditative experience out of this, sculpting viewers' time as he always did to draw out each moment and force you to think about what's on screen and what's being said. It might be agony for some viewers, because each shot lingers for long, long, long stretches of time. It kills the pacing, especially when the characters stop moving and decide to discuss philosophy for minutes on end.

Fortunately, this film will reward patient viewers. The combination of dreary visuals and sharp writing directs the audience to contemplate greater implications of the journey. It's not so much about three guys walking through the woods--it's an allegory to religious pilgrimage, and synonymous to living life itself. The entire trip challenges each characters' faith, as they question the existence and validity of an all-powerful Room that promises them happiness and fulfilled wishes. Each performer puts on melancholy and understated performances, accentuating the stillness of the cinematography and the quietness of the soundtrack. The sheer mood suggests cynicism towards society, the arts, science, religion--the entirety of mankind. Viewers can infer any number of conclusions, as the Stalker himself distresses over how people lost their way.

This is one of the ultimates in art-house cinema. Stalker has cinematography like no other, showcasing places and people so dark, but with a delicate touch that implies greater beauty in nature and power of forces above and beyond mankind. Best of all, the film offers content worth contemplating and reflecting on. Tarkovsky and the crew suffered toxic environments to realize this vision. Then, the film was destroyed--the Soviet laboratories were unfamiliar with the film stock and it was improperly developed. Tensions with the cinematographer (who was subsequently fired) only accentuated the frustration and cynicism Tarkovsky felt, before having to re-shoot the entire film again. What's left might be a reflection of his own anguish. And we are given a chance to stare into his abyss, to see what stares back at us.

If you have the interest, the patience, the willpower, the film is a must-see.

4/5

Imagine waiting in line, in which you don't know what's going to happen. Maybe you'll be shipped home, to safety and comfort. Maybe you'll die.

In 1940, 400,000 Allied soldiers faced awaited their fate on the beaches of Dunkirk. For nine days, these poor souls endured heavy gunfire and bombardments, while a fleet of civilian ships raced to their rescue. There was no naval fleet or air force to swoop in and save the day. The soldiers had no choice but to wait--to live, or to die.

The 2017 film Dunkirk is an intense cinematic experience that places the audience in line with the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen. Offering little in terms of character hooks or color, the film immediately dunks the viewers in the madness of war, starting off with men running for their lives in the streets, before following them on land, sea, and air. Three specific perspectives are used to show the battle. One is the shoes of a soldier who does everything he can to find a ship home. Another takes place on the deck of a humble yacht, helmed by an old man and a pair of boys who want to do their part in the evacuation effort. The third happens through the eyes of Spitfire pilots racing to stop enemy bombers and fighters from killing more troops.

Despite each narrative having different lapses of time, they are all interwoven together. It can be a challenge to understand the order of events, since the film will show something happening (such as a plane going down), then follow-up with it again from a different angle. This method creates some fascinating disparities between perspectives, as some characters perceive events in one light, but then audiences see that their views were skewed or wrong. The finale in particular is a complex multi-sided affair, which ambiguously suggests both defeat and victory. The triptych plot also gives the film rhythm, so that it becomes a series of waves that washes over the viewers.

And it will feel like waves and waves of terror. The story by nature is terrifying, and the film is careful to remain understated and let the events speak for themselves. There's little dialogue to this (which will spark some complaints that the characters lack depth or presence). But the actors do succeed in making their struggles convincingly, painstakingly convincing. It's all amplified by the film's style. Over each scene, Hans Zimmer's score washes over the soundscape with an eerie, creepy sort of industrial ambiance. The camera moves organically across the geography--it gets a little rough when it follows the characters on foot and in the tight corridors of ships, but it's very smooth and elegant with the aerial footage. Most of the film is drenched in steely blue and gray--at times, it makes the environments look beautiful, but it becomes hellish when sand and water washes over the characters and threaten to smother them.

That's ultimately the point of all this: the experience of war-time fear. The style and script focus on the hopelessness of the situation, before exploring all the horrifying situations in which soldiers could die: obliterated by bombs, shot by guns, drowned in the hold of a ship, drowned in the cockpit of a sinking plane, struck or crushed by falling structures, and more. With the film showing so much danger and threat, it struck me that there is a (perhaps unintentional) parallel between the English channel and the River Styx. After all, these were men trapped in a state of limbo, being picked off by unseen, faceless enemies, while waiting for a safe crossing. Even if the soldiers get out alive, they still face an ambiguous future where war continues and more will face death.

Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk is an industrial-grade thrill ride. It's looks and sounds steely, cold, and oppressive, but it hits hard--the cinematic equivalent of a Rammstein song. The narrative is rather odd, but it does succeed in dipping audiences into all the dangers of war. With the film's dedication to showing realistic replications of ships and planes used in the evacuation, it's also a faithful and insightful view of historic events I was otherwise unaware of. In spite of this, the film is a valuable experience in its own right.

4/5

If we ever do meet an extraterrestrial race, our first biggest hurdle will be communication. Say the right things, and mankind could make a friend. Say the wrong things, and it could be war. It may not even be war with them, but war among ourselves, as we struggle to comprehend who they would be and what would they want.

These are the things that Isaac Asimov's dreams and HP Lovecraft's nightmares are made of, and it's also the focus of Arrival. In this slow-burning sci-fi drama, big alien discs appear around the Earth, and a language professor joins a government science team attempting first contact. Communication is the basis for all the conflict in this film, to the point where physical action and stakes come up dry. What it does accomplish effectively is building tension on the core dilemma, thanks to the gradual build-up of political pressure.

The story has a lot of merit and is worth seeing, even if it's been done before. Chances are nobody remembers a humble made-for-TV film Epoch, which was also about a strange alien rock that appeared and challenged scientists to decipher its message in the shadow of political stress. Arrival carries over all those same ideas, but with substantially better quality. Cinematography, dark though it is, boasts very solid photography, with shots that are occasionally evocative. Performances are top-notch--I've never seen so much emotional range from Amy Adams before, I continuously forgot it was her acting. Writing is fine. This production has really nice-looking sets, props, costumes, locales, and special effects. The music score has some odd quirks, but marries well with the film.

As a story, Arrival demands attention by toying with audience perception in ways that makes viewers wonder about what's really going on between the lines and what will happen next. There is a long dry spell in the opening quarter or so where tension and stakes are absent--these scenes are probably the weakest, but might hold up better on repeat viewings. The middle, with all its wonder and mystery, is properly captivating. The climax is gripping, but wraps up in a very fast and tidy manner--maybe a little quick for my liking. But this is accomplished by a natural quirk of the story involving the perception of time--it's a major plot point and theme, and it even prompts a more experimental cutting of the film to string the narrative to its natural conclusion. It's a style and twist befitting a Christopher Nolan film, but without killing credulity. If anything, most of Arrival holds up to scrutiny in its tight circle of a plot.

One thing that is hard to swallow is the sudden love story that pops up towards the end. With zero chemistry between the characters in question, this comes off as an abrupt way to tie up one or two loose ends that could have been left alone. At the same time, maybe chemistry isn't needed, given the circumstances of the overall story. Knowing the full circle of what happens, it fits in its own way, even if it feels like it shouldn't.

This is not a film to watch for action--it's a high-brow sci-fi drama with an intimate focus on character, plot, and themes. There is a slight undercurrent that carries the same fears and themes of a movie like The Day the Earth Stood Still, and it's enough to ensnare willing viewers in its delicate loop of a story. For the unwilling viewers who want more zing, I hear there's a cool new Star Wars movie! 4/5

We know his name. Jason Bourne has a whole book and movie series to his name, cementing Matt Damon's performance as an iconic character on par with Daniel Craig's Bond or Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer. From The Bourne Identity to The Bourne Ultimatum, Jason Bourne went through a complete story arc that focused on his struggle to understand who he is, as a lost ex-spy and as a human being.

Now, we have a fourth film in the arc (fifth if you count the stand-alone Bourne Legacy, which I barely remember and has no bearing on this film). Jason Bourne finds the man off the grid again, drifting place to place as if in a trance, making ends meet through the exquisite art of bare-knuckle boxing. Of course, something happens that pulls him back into the CIA's crosshairs. He's forced to run from Greece to London to Vegas, outrunning and outsmarting spies and assassins as he searches for the truth. Again.

There's absolutely nothing new to Jason Bourne. For a movie that bears the man's full name, as if to suggest this will be a definitive character-defining adventure, it's rather disappointing. There's only one relevant point to the movie makes: another piece to Bourne's past. This revelation serves solely to villainize the villains and give Bourne a reason to kill them. It doesn't change anything before or after: Bourne is nothing more than a golem in this movie who smashes his enemies and comes out totally unscathed and unchanged. There is no real danger or peril to be felt, and there's little-to-no reason to cling to Bourne as a character (other than sheer badassery). He's a total rock, who confronts equally-flat characters.

The story itself seems to prove that all the Bourne movies now have a formula: movie starts with Bourne off the grid, something happens, he gets chased, he chases and outsmarts people, then repeat five times in five different countries until he confronts the guy in charge. The end. Guess what? That's pretty much all that happens here: the movie goes through three or four different repetitions of the exact same spy game with big setpieces in exotic locales, but it amounts to a predictable outcome. The only stakes at hand is the threadbare piece of personal history. The movie crams in some current issues ripped from yesterday's headlines (such as mass surveillance conspiracies, finding back doors in communication technology, name-dropping Snowden ad nauseam), which gives some fairly interesting social stakes, but it comes off as stuffy and droll. It's a thrilling experience in the moment, but when I take a step back, I have to ask, this is it? Didn't we see this stuff already with Supremacy and Ultimatum? Fans may be pleased to know that with Paul Greengrass back in the director's chair, the film is on-par with previous Bourne entries. That means, for better or for worse, an onslaught of hyperkenetic action scenes with horrendous camera shake and rapid-fire editing. When the camera isn't shaking, the film is as dark and drab as they come, and most shots are quite pedestrian. Fortunately, performances are decent. Matt Damon still embodies Jason Bourne with impressive physical and emotional intensity. Tommy Lee Jones is fitting as the stiff CIA director. Alicia Vikander can't seem to hold an American accent, but it hardly bothered me—I enjoyed her performance just as well as the rest of the cast. Vincent Cassel is just as menacing here as he was staring in Mesrine. Writing is fairly understated—dialogue is scant, but does its job aptly of giving information and letting the story and characters fill in the blanks. This production is one of the most creditable-looking spy movies around: all the locales, sets, props, and costumes look gritty, realistic, and palpable. Music is okay (although, despite my adoration of Moby's work, "Extreme Ways" continues to grate on me personally, even with a new remix).

In fact, the end-credits song may as well embody what this movie is all about: the same old thing with heavier beats. But while the original three movies had a character arc worth exploring, this movie draws out a rather thin thread to string the formulaic plot along. And in the end, I realize there's little reason for me to care about Bourne or what happens to him in this pointless entry in the series.

If you're a fan, see it, by all means, you might love it. But unless filmmakers break out of the standard Bourne mold, the original three movies will remain where the series begins and ends for me.

2.5/5

After two successful entries of the rebooted Star Trek series, it's finally time to bring the adventures of the Enterprise to the final frontier. What will they find on the edge of space? The latest film finds the Enterprise crew in the middle of their five-year assignment--in the heart of a wicked-looking nebula, they'll come face-to-face with a menace that could wipe out the Federation for good.

Surprisingly, the film kicks off on a rather dour note--after an amusing opening scene, Kirk reflects on three years of mundane exploration. Once the set-up is out of the way, the film delivers ample amounts of action that just gets bigger and bigger. Grand space battles. Phaser-beam fights. Lots of running and gunning. In one epic finale, Kirk and the gang has to save a thriving space colony from certain destruction, overcoming swarms of ships before duking it out with the bad guy.

There are cool scenes in Star Trek: Beyond, but it's far from the end-all-be-all Trek adventure. Despite the action, the film drags between the major action swells. Part of the issue is that outside of JJ Abrams' hands, a certain something is missing. Color, spirit, and energy are dampened--Beyond is surprisingly dark in its lighting and mood, and slightly bland in its style and writing. Fortunately, the experience is funner in its second half than the first--some light comedy (thanks to McCoy, Scotty, and a lovable alien named Jaylah) and absurdity (a few unlikely stunts, and a certain scene with Beastie Boys music) makes this a fair (but not exceptional) blockbuster experience.

The story this film tells is an interesting one for the Enterprise records (and it's most welcome after the uninspired events of Into Darkness). By nature, it's a story that challenges the series' classic themes of exploration and utopic peace. In turn, these themes carry over to the character arcs, as Kirk finds his mojo again in the face of death. Characters are as strong as ever--they are familiar and mature at this point, and they feel more at home as the Enterprise crew than they did in the previous films. The villain adds an interesting dimension to things as well--I found the big twist predictable, but it is an interesting turn that keeps the action going and keeps enough brain cells firing. The film offers a few sentiments concerning certain characters and events before its closing, keeping it from being a total throwaway.

The film boasts plain photography and editing. Most scenes in the first half seem really dark and drab. However, there are some impressive standouts (including a great time-lapse shot of a spaceship being built). Acting is great: Chris Pine seems most mature as Captain Kirk, but still kicks plenty of butt and shows all the right attitude we know and love. Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin still deliver great performances. Idris Elba is a decently-menacing villain, and I was fairly smitten by Sofia Boutellas' character. Writing is not bad--it's nowhere near as low-key as the last two movies, which I think makes the film more creditable as a Trek movie, but it also comes off as a little dry (even with the humor). This production uses decent-looking sets, props, and costumes--a lot of things match up with the Trek universe well, and Yorktown might be the most imaginative space station I've seen. Most special effects are great. The music score is lovely.

Star Trek: Beyond doesn't have the same punch as its predecessors, but it is an enjoyable film with an original, fairly thoughtful story. While the film won't leave as big of an impact, it has its fair share of fun.

3.5/5

Batman. Superman. They are two of the most recognized superheroes of all time. Both have been in the pop culture psyche as far back as the late 1930s, and have remained at the top of the DC Comics food chain ever since. With regards to this film, two questions immediately come to mind: why are they fighting, and how can Batman possibly stand a chance against the Man of Steel?

The answer to the latter is painfully obvious, because it's been done before: make Superman weaker. The film's execution of this aspect is fair and makes sense in the film, trust me. It's the former question that begs the most attention, and the film spends most of its time answering it. Part of the answer is personal — during the events of the Man of Steel film, Bruce Wayne lost many employees while Superman and General Zod duked it out across Metropolis. Wayne was there to see the carnage first-hand, and like every other human being caught in the devastation he saw the potential for Superman to become a godlike tyrant with no moral regard for people. Superman, on the other hand, sees Batman's brand of justice and finds it appalling. Both heroes represent two sides of a coin — one comes from a dark world where pain and death has molded him into an uncompromising vigilante, and the other comes from outer space and is still struggling for acceptance. Matters become even more complex when a certain maniacal millionaire — Lex Luthor — purposefully sabotages events to pit the two heroes against each other. The combination of personal and social stakes escalate until an actual fight inevitably happens.

In spite of this, the film's first half is devoted to the storytelling, and the last act is entirely action. Both halves couldn't be more different. Even though there's only sporadic bursts of excitement in the first half, the film's visual style is potent and elegant, in the same way Watchmen was. Some of the most awe- inspiring scenes show dramatic heroics and surreal dreamscapes with a fantasy-painting quality, and it is often as invoking as it is gorgeous. If the film maintained this level of artistry, it could have become one of the best and boldest superhero films of them all.

Unfortunately, the last act becomes a brutal assault on the senses, where the action becomes relentless and hard on the eyes. As epic as it is, it's exhausting. Worse of all, any storytelling nuance is suddenly lost — reasons for the fight suddenly cease to matter, and the entire climax becomes a shallow spectacle. At least with Man of Steel, there was always a focus on characters — here, they merely go through the motions. The ending ultimately left me with mixed feelings — it's obvious that there will be more to come, but on its own the film felt rather bipolar in nature.

Perhaps in spite of this, the film's story feels rather convoluted. The actual sequence of events is quite loose, and the matter is further complicated by the way it shows its broad ideas rather than telling them outright. I personally value and admire the imagery at times, such as the Day of the Dead scene, or Batman's bizarre dream in the desert — images in these key moments say much more than all the words in the film combined. It also makes the film very surreal, and it demands that audiences make connections on their own. Plot issues are further compounded by various holes and stretches that might be too hard to stomach.

It is a dark, no-nonsense film. Batman is as brutal as ever, thanks not only to his merciless fight scenes, but also to Ben Affleck's convincing performance. Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, and Diane Lane reprise their roles quite aptly. I've also warmed up more to Laurence Fishburne's performance as Perry White. The real wild card in this cast is Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor — he channels both Heath Ledger's Joker and his own portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg from The Social Network to provide a twitchy, rambling, maniacal performance. It's nothing like the classic megalomaniacs we're used to seeing out of Gene Hackman or Kevin Spacey, but I found myself enjoying Eisenberg's take on the character a lot. Jeremy Irons might be my new favorite Alfred — he inhabits the character with plenty of dry wit and class. Gal Gaddot definitely looks the part as Diana Prince. The film's writing has plenty of decent lines and ideas, but some of it comes off as blunt. This production utilizes some decent-looking sets, props, and costumes — there are plenty of cool things to behold, but very little that wowed me the same way Man of Steel did. Music score by Hans Zimmer and JXL is noisy, as expected, but the themes are quite distinctive and invigorating.

There's half of a great movie in this. If it was consistent in its style and narrative, it could have been a great film on par with Watchmen. While certain moments in BvS have captivated me, I felt lost and disconnected by the final fight. Regardless, it is a grand vision worth seeing for any superhero fans, which will elicit thought, controversy, and talking points. It might even be the start of a thrilling and bold new cinematic universe that could rival Marvel in the end.

3.5/5

This is the story of Bill, an unassuming and lonely stick figure. His mundane life takes a turn for the worst when Don Hertzfeldt's signature craziness takes over and Bill's world spirals out of control. If you know Hertzfeldt's work, you know this film will have some episodes of freaky comedy that comes from way out in left field, with occasional grotesque monstrosities and dark wit. Some of these scenes make the film humorous and intriguing. It does a lot more though -- the film gradually becomes nuttier and nuttier, until it becomes a sobering reflection on human frailty and mortality.

But that's not the end of it. The second chapter kicks in, digging up more of Bill's past and future. Then there's the third chapter, which gives a remarkable upswing and tells a story of Bill having a reawakening. At this stage, the film becomes an inspiring and artistic narrative, suggesting that the human spirit transcends space and time.

The entirety of It's Such a Beautiful Day is a complete narrative that chronicles one man's life and drags the audience through all the ups and downs of his suffering. It leads to a wonderful payoff that illustrates the beauty of life and gives hope in the face of death.

You might think a movie with stick figure people wouldn't be elegant, but this film is a complex piece of art that incorporates minimalist drawings with raw photography and other real-life elements to paint a composite picture. It is especially notable when the film draws certain lines between the reality Bill sees and the reality he discovers, made apparent when more real-life footage is used at the end. In short, a lot of work went into bringing these stick figures to life, but the world around them is truly vivid. Voice acting and sounds are wonderful and highly effective. The music is quite uplifting as well.

It's funny at times, bleak in others, and there are crazy parts. But it delivers a cathartic experience with emotional themes that can resonate with everybody. It's a movie that tells you no matter what you're going through, everything will be okay in the end. People are wonderful. It is such a beautiful universe.

5/5

Superman has always been one of the most quintessential superheroes of comic-book lore. It's hard to top a man who can fly, zap things with his eyeballs, see through walls, move faster than a speeding bullet, jump over buildings, survive just about everything, and live for centuries. On film, the Man of Steel has been treated with varying degrees of class and cheese — Richard Donner's films are iconic in themselves, and Bryan Singer's film has its moments. Given the success of The Dark Knight trilogy, it was only inevitable that filmmakers would try to put a more earnest, serious, heavy-weight spin on the saga of Superman.

Unfortunately, this is still not a perfect adaptation. Many critics and film-goers have written this film off as stylistically gaudy, crammed-full of gargantuan action scenes with one too many camera zooms and shakes and a wonky narrative. It has become the biggest love-it-or-hate-it film of 2013.

I, for one, love the film, despite all its excesses and problems. The action continuously blows me away — its sheer scope and velocity blows most other superhero films out of the water. It's relentless as superpowered characters slam into each other at rocketing speeds, blasting entire city blocks in their wake. In some of the most gut-wrenching scenes, alien machines pummel huge parts of Metropolis to a flattened ruin. It is rather exhausting, but this is the spectacle I always wanted out of Superman: an epic and highly-destructive clash of menacing, otherworldly forces.

A lot of the film's momentum can be attributed to its narrative, which is purposefully mixed-up so that it doesn't waste that much time covering old ground. The relevant parts of Superman's origins are covered in flashbacks inserted at key moments. This does create a jarring shift that may throw viewers off, but I feel the pacing is perfect — the drama never overstays its welcome. What really matters are the characters, which are at their strongest. The film intimately explores the title character, not only through the snippets of the origin story, but also in exploring him as an outcast full of emotional vulnerabilities. The film shows what he learns from living among humans, the importance of moral strength and moderation, and his struggle to find his place in the world. There are also some deviations that I think benefit the story (Lois Lane is no longer a total ditz, General Zod has phenomenal motivation that makes him a villain to sympathize with, and there are no more silly games being played with secret identities).

There are still a few nitpicks that even I can't shake off, however. I never did get used to the notion that Superman can be seen as a threat to humanity (perhaps because I've been spoiled by the older films, where Superman saves people and is cheered — here, he saves people and gets into trouble). The fate of Jonathan Kent is a rather manipulative scene that I feel is quite daft. The most critical viewers would also make the same complaints as with Zack Snyder's other films: too cold, not enough depth. Although I can understand the same complaints for Sucker Punch and Watchmen, I feel that Man of Steel is the warmest film Zack Snyder has made to date. It does succeed in achieving the right level of pathos to make the audience care for the main character (something that other Snyder films always struggled with).

As mentioned before, the photography can be rather gaudy, with frequent use of zooms, some camera shaking, and some scenes with bright flashing lights. Personally, I never found it all that problematic — most of the film still looks pretty solid, and I think the drama scenes boast some of the best shots, with intimate close-ups of specific characters and objects. Editing is pretty interesting, for better or for worse. Acting is a surprising treat: I think Henry Cavill is superb as the title character, and everybody else is pretty decent. Michael Shannon and Russell Crowe steal the show repeatedly — Shannon is especially menacing and intense, for perfect effect. I appreciate Amy Adams' and Diane Lane's performances. Didn't mind Kevin Costner — I can take or leave Laurence Fishburne playing Perry White. For some reason, I'm enamored by Antje Traue playing Faora — she's wicked and intense enough to put Ursa from Superman II to shame. Writing gets the job done — there are some good lines, but some of it feels rather blunt to me. This production has great-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales — it's especially cool how organic and unique all the Kryptonian technology looks. Special effects are plentiful, some looking phenomenal and others looking a little too glossy or cartoony. Hans Zimmer's score, much like the film itself, has been criticized for being too much shallow noise, but I personally love the music for its simple themes and powerful spirit.

In fact, that pretty much sums up my stance on Man of Steel: it's noisy, but I still find it moving. It may not be a perfect film, but it does pack a heck of a punch in many ways. It has power not only in the action scenes (of which there is plenty), but also in the characters and their struggles to find strength and a place in the world.

5/5

Of all the classic Bond films, this one represents the most drastic deviation. It's a darker, more serious adventure that takes the character to more profound levels of peril and tragedy.

Right from the start, the film differentiates itself with its dreary imagery and a hard-hitting fight scene on a beach. Then there's a long, winding series of fights, deception, and intrigue. A good chunk of the film is devoted to a lengthy chase across Switzerland, which includes a ton of skiing, a huge avalanche, and a car chase. It eventually builds up to an all-out battle in the mountains. Then there's the ending, which is the one thing that pushes this whole film above and beyond the normal levels of a Bond adventure. It is a dramatic and profound turn for the character, and it has to be seen to be understood.

The story's generally more of the same: Bond has a mission to find a bad guy, reveal the evil plot, then take him out. He spends most of the time undercover, so the thrills and intrigue are much more grounded. The actual plot that's revealed is as outlandish and weird as they come. What matters the most are the characters: Bond is still the man, but the love interest provides a touching flourish that gives the story more weight.

Most of this film features good photography, but some shots are a bit hectic. Editing is very punchy, to the point where shots become compressed to mere seconds, and it almost appears agitating (though not nearly as bad as most modern movies, like the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace). For a film from the 60s, it's pretty wild. Acting is quite the mixed bag. I was never a fan of George Lazenby, but the more I watch the film, the more forgiving I am of him - he embodies the voice and swagger of the character well enough. I'm still not a fan of Telly Savalas, whose portrayal of Blofeld feels very odd and foreign to me. I do love Diana Rigg in this film. Writing is okay. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the sets, props, and costumes are a bit gaudy and weird, and most special effects look kinda bad. John Barry's music score is superb - his main theme is so dramatic, it's chilling. Unfortunately, I am not a fan of Louis Armstrong's love theme.

Even though there are odd things to hate about OHMSS, it is a bold film that offers an intriguing direction for Bond, and offers a little more substance to its story that gives the ending a proper punch. For that alone, all Bond fans need to see the film at least once.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Good | Film: Pretty Good)

After so many plots unraveled across four classic films, James Bond would finally reach the top and confront the head man of SPECTRE, in You Only Live Twice.

This time, Bond's mission takes him to Japan. It starts off hard and fast, as he fakes his death, and then struggles to escape death in a constant string of confrontations and encounters on foreign soil. When Bond has to infiltrate a secret volcanic lair, he resorts to the ultimate cover: marrying a Japanese girl, while learning ninjutsu and getting facial surgery. It all adds up to a big, explosive battle in the middle of the volcano. As always, there's gadgets (the biggest thing being a small DIY helicopter with loads of weapons) there's ladies, and there's danger galore.

The story follows the original novel just a little bit, but the book will always have the edge because it has one important dramatic angle that the movie misses out on: the theme of revenge. The book was a pretty intense struggle, because it follows immediately after On Her Majesty's Secret Service. If you know what happens in that story, then you know how driven Bond becomes to finding Blofeld and making him pay. Also, Bond actually became a ninja and infiltrated a castle to get his vengeance - how cool is that? The movie misses out on many of these opportunities, and instead keeps the tone light and fluffy. It takes some pretty ridiculous turns, including a useless subplot involving a rocket that steals other rockets in space. The only thing that makes this feel special is that he fakes death and assume a disguise, but it never reaches a level of significance that affects the plot much. For Bond, it's just business as usual.

This film is made with decent photography. One thing I think it weird though is that most shots, especially during the fight scenes, are taken from really really far away. Editing is okay. Acting is fine for what it is: Sean Connery seems to give a more tongue-in-cheek portrayal of Bond, but his presence is still welcome. Donald Pleasence plays the villain pretty dryly, but his mere presence and look is iconic. I have no complaints with Akiko Wakabayashi's, Mie Hama's, or Tetsuro Tamba's performances. Writing is okay, but most of the jokes fall horribly flat. This production has good-looking locales. Some of the props, costumes, and special effects appear cheap. I was never a fan of Nancy Sinatra's theme song, but the music score is alright.

You Only Live Twice is enjoyable, but also lightweight, silly, and rather shallow. The book is quite a bit better, but even by the standards of the film series, there are better Bond adventures.

3/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)

Even though this is a Cold War thriller, this is not a movie you'd want to see for action. Sure, there's a couple of big chase scenes and some shooting in the middle, but most of this film is all about the characters. On one side, you have the suave, skilled, confident American thief who struck a deal to work for the CIA. On the other side, you have the strong, blunt, rigid Russian superspy who suffers from some anger management issues. Put the two together on a mission, and the sheer chemistry really makes the sparks fly.

What the film lacks in actual action or setpieces, it makes up for tremendously in the characters. All of the film's fun is in watching the sharp banter between the two polar-opposite male leads. The dialogue alone is often witty, amusing, and shows great color and personality. Best of all, it's brought to life vividly by the actors, who offer top-notch performances. To say nothing of the female leads, who offer even more dynamism to the plot.

Fortunately, the plot is pretty interesting and solid too. The actual mission the characters go on carries over a lot of familiar tropes and elements you might see in other spy movies - dense conspiracies, elaborate games of deception, megalomaniacs, torture, etc. The characters are very well-developed and their volatile relationships keep the pace rolling for the whole runtime. Unfortunately, all the color seems to get sucked out in the last big chase, before the endgame rolls out. The last few scenes tie together some pieces of the plot that you'll never even notice throughout the picture, before its reaches a strangely short ending. It's more of a punchline than a climax.

One more thing that makes this movie shine will be its production and style. Filming looks fantastic, and it is edited in a fairly flashy way. There is a ton of really great, hip music throughout. If it was any flashier, it would feel like a Tarantino picture. Performances are awesome by the whole cast: Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer are both great in their roles, and they play off of each other very aptly. Alicia Vikander is just as fun to watch. Elizabeth Debicki is especially entrancing to watch - her performance is like the antithesis to Audrey Hepburn (same sense of fashion and everything), and it's all the more effective that way. This production uses very good, real-looking sets, props, and costumes.

I have no idea how good of an adaptation this movie is to the original TV show, but I love it for its style, its playful tone, and its characters. If that appeals to you, then the film is certainly recommended. If it's action you crave, better go watch Mission Impossible instead.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

After seeing James Bond in action in three big, iconic missions, Thunderball blasts to the scene with the promise of more action, more gadgets, more ladies, bigger stakes, more exotic locations, and so much more! At this point, the Bond formula had been established firmly enough so that Thunderball only has to follow a template full of established tropes and clichés. Many folks will say that it makes this one of the duller movies. I personally always thought it was a blast though. Among the highlights, this film follows Bond on a colorful journey to Nassau, where he has to constantly out-think and outwit the opposition. There's a lot of deceptive mindgames at work, followed by some chasing and some fighting, before a massive all-out battle underwater. It's a long film, but it is consistently thrilling and it has a satisfying payoff. Best of all, the film remains iconic thanks to the classic elements at play: Bond's classic charm, a classic villain we love to hate, and an overall sense of class.

The premise is pretty simple, generally not much different than a lot of modern action movies revolving around stolen nuclear weapons (like Broken Arrow, The Rock, Mission Impossible, you name it). It follows Ian Flemming's novel practically word for word (which is unsurprising, since it was based on a screenplay to begin with). What makes it so fun is that it's twisty and complex, but not impossible to follow. Each new scene offers something that's either thrilling or alluring. The characters are as endearing as ever.

Caught in epic widescreen photography, this film boasts plenty of bright and colorful scenery. Most of it looks great, especially with some steady and well-choreographed underwater photography. Some scenes, especially during the parade scene, are a bit rough around the edges. Editing can be nutty, as some dialogue has been cut, dubbed, and recut for various versions. Scenes usually transit well regardless. Acting is great: Sean Connery is still the man, and I always enjoyed the performances of Adolfo Celi, the lovely Claudine Auger, and the lovely Licuana Paluzzi. Writing is okay - the plot unravels well, and the dialogue is usually good, but some of the jokes can be a little goofy. This production uses great-looking locales, and lots of fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. John Barry's music score is as good as ever, and Tom Jones' theme song is hip.

To me, Thunderball is one of the most perfect Bond adventures. It has all the right signature elements we know and love, but with tons of thrills and action. It is a long adventure that might strain the patience of many viewers, but I think it's classy, sexy, exciting stuff.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)

In Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, there was a brief mention of a new mission, before Ethan disappears into a cloud of steam. In his fifth adventure, Ethan would go face-to-face with the "Rogue Nation," a Syndicate so threatening that it threatens the world powers and forces Ethan and the team to face their toughest challenge yet.

This mission has its share of incredible peril. Once again, the entire IMF is rendered useless (this time out of political squabbling among the Intelligence Community), forcing the heroes to go off on their own off the grid to find the threat and use their limited resources to stop it. In their struggles, the characters have to infiltrate an impossibly secure facility, which involves Ethan swimming through a water-filled computer core. Given the physical threat and the physical feats involved, this scene is genuinely gripping. There is a pretty cool motorcycle chase in the middle of the movie. There are shootouts and fights. It all amounts to a complex cat-and-mouse chase, in the same vein as Skyfall, but with a bigger emphasis on deception. The push and pull and mindgames may need some suspension of disbelief - it seems as though Ethan can somehow plan for the most incredible of plot twists in advance and always come out with an even more elaborate plan - but it is fun to watch it all play out.

The story has its worthy moments. The premise is naturally thrilling, as the IMF team confronts great stakes once again. Ethan and the others have become a familiar family by now, and they remain endearing characters. What makes them stand out more now will be the themes of trust, especially with everyone questioning William Brandt's loyalty and what Ilsa Faust's motives are. Faust is a lovely new character caught in the middle of a tricky spy game, and her situation elicits decent empathy. Behind it all is a fairly menacing villain, who comes out as Ethan's direct foil; a mastermind terrorist who becomes obsessed with outwitting the IMF and becoming a true rogue nation.

Despite all the twists, the story does suffer a little. For a movie about a "rogue nation," I expected something bigger, like an actual nation of rogues or something. I expected the villains to have a grander level of influence and infrastructure, but they turned out to be a limited number of well-armed and well-funded men out for petty vengeance. The film ultimately doesn't reach the same level of stakes, personal or political, that were represented in MI:III or MI: GP. On top of that, the film seems to drop everything regarding Ethan's wife, obliterating any character arc that had developed. There are a few scenes that seem a little too incredible, especially in how convoluted the mindgames become. The opening sequence is too short for my liking (I actually wish the plane stunt was somewhere in the middle of the movie, so it would give us all something incredible to look forward to). Regardless, this film is a fine spy thriller, but not the all-out MI extravaganza I would have expected.

This film boasts good, but rarely exceptional, photography. Editing tends to be rather fast. Tom Cruise is still apt as Ethan Hunt. Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Ving Rhames are fun to watch. I thought Rebecca Ferguson was perfectly lovely in her role. Sean Harris is a pretty decent villain. Alec Baldwin plays a pretty grumpy dude in his role (and coming from a man who once played Jack Ryan, I find his character a bit too unreasonable and unlikable). Writing is okay. This production uses pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects are okay. Stunts are good. Locales are pretty good, but they don't really stand out as much as in other movies. The music score seemed really bombastic, for better or for worse.

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is far from my favorite of the series. I personally wish the plot wasn't quite as implausible. I wish the nature of the "rogue nation" was different. I wish that a bunch of other little things could be altered. Despite my petty complaints, it is entertaining and worth a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Mission: Impossible III may be a tough act to follow, given its superb balance between action and storytelling. Who would have thought that there would be even bigger and more daring missions to come? Ghost Protocol takes the IMF team and plunges it into immediate danger, cut off from their parent agency and disavowed. On their own, without backup and support, they rely on what scant leads, tech, and resources they can to stop a bunch of villains from kick-starting nuclear war. In this mission, Ethan Hunt busts out of a Russian gulag, infiltrates the Kremlin (in the coolest way imaginable), and chases bad guys in cars and on foot. One of the biggest and most iconic scenes shows the man scaling the side of the Burj Khalifa Tower, hundreds of stories high, filmed in stunning detail with IMAX cameras. With so many stunts, so much deception, and such high stakes, the mission has never been more exciting and incredible.

This story doesn't have the same emotional heft as its predecessor, largely because Ethan's wife is out of the picture (and there is a nice subplot that explains what's going on there), and because the story's villain just doesn't have that much presence or motivation. What this film does have, thankfully, is a superb cast of heroes we love and can root for. Ethan had teams in all the other movies, but they feel like more of a team in Ghost Protocol, largely because they are all forced to work together without outside help. The conflict and banter between them allows these characters to develop their own personalities, which makes them all people we can relate to and root for. The actual plot retreads the tired old territory of "we got to stop nuclear war!!" but it does an apt job of stringing together the setpieces in a logical way, crafting a well-rounded adventure.

This film boasts superb photography and editing. Just about every shot is cool, without too much camera shake (like Abrams' film) and without any superfluous style choices (looking at you, John Woo). Tom Cruise is still quite the action hero, but is still well-grounded in this. I loved watching Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, Paula Patton, and Léa Seydoux. Even though his character wasn't that well-developed, Michael Nyqvist was a convincing villain. Writing is pretty good. This production uses plenty of good-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Special effects can be a hit or a miss. Music is good.

Even though MI: III offers the best characterization and story, I favor MI: GP the most for its fabulous setpieces, while still retaining a lovable core cast and presenting a thrilling plot to bring it all together. I think it's a total blast, and one of the best spy movies in general.

4/5 (Experience: Very Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Very Good)

In the 90s, there was a pretty decent wave of spy movies; it started with a bang with 1994's explosive True Lies, which was shortly followed by the Brosnan era of James Bond, The Saint, Sneakers, and more. In the middle of this wave, Mission: Impossible burst into the blockbuster scene in '96, offering a flashier update on the classic TV series, complete with a prolific cast, some thrilling and memorable setpieces, and of course, action.

There are some great moment in this film. One of the most famous scenes is watching Ethan infiltrating a high-tech vault on wires, dangling over a pressure-sensitive floor while hacking into a secure computer; it's still quite the tense scene. On top of that, the bullet train scene is pretty awesome. There is a good amount of fights, chases, and explosions. There is plenty of tech on display, which all seemed really cool in the 90s (to include self-destructing video tapes, glasses with cameras, explosive gum, computer stuff, and more). There's political intrigue abound, causing the plot to twist around with themes of deception and counter-deception. For a spy movie, Mission: Impossible offers plenty to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the experience is hampered a bit by an overall feeling of dryness, causing some drag in between the more exciting scenes. This happens because the characters themselves are dry and fairly shallow caricatures; Ethan Hunt is a pretty standard action hero in this film, who watches his team fall apart and he's forced to go out on his own to find answers. This would be a great premise, but there's nothing much to Ethan's character to make us care for him. Without any personal stakes, the plot comes off as dry and shallow. There are neat ideas behind it, such as using a digital list of undercover agents as a MacGuffin, but on its own this is all rather dry and stuffy. On top of that, the film distances itself greatly from the source material; even though some names, some gadgets, and some aspects (like the use of masks) remain the same, the intrigue of the original show is ultimately replaced by pure spectacle. The original cast of the show hated this film, and if you're a fan of the original, chances are that you may not care for it (or its sequels) either.

Fortunately, the film looks good and professional, with fantastic photography and solid editing. Tom Cruise does his usual schtick in his role, smiling a lot and acting all cocky; Jon Voight does his normal thing, and is pretty decent. The smaller roles by Jean Reno and Emilio Estevez are great. Other actors aren't bad. Writing could use more personality and color, but it's fine as it is. This production uses some really nice-looking locales, and some decent-looking sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Danny Elfman's music score is a pretty standard variation on the classic TV show's theme.

Mission: Impossible has a lot of cool parts, but the sum of those parts aren't quite as endearing. The various sequels, especially the third film, would properly align the series with a greater level of heart and ambition. As it is though, this first film is a pretty neat thriller, especially for its time.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Story: Average | Film: Good)

Ethan Hunt returns for another mission. This time it's far more extreme and far more impossible. Riding the wave of insane action movies of the 2000s - utterly ridiculous films like Charlie's Angels, Die Another Day, xXx, and more - MI:2 is an adrenaline shot full of flash and style.

Unlike the first film, which was more interested in being a spy thriller, MI:2 comes off as a pretty silly and trashy action flick. Much of the story revolves around a biochemical weapon, so the film takes some time to set up the characters with some deception and counter-deception games. When the last hour hits, it becomes an all-out bombardment of over-the-top setpieces, featuring lots of explosive gunplay, dramatic fistfights, and vehicular carnage. There are some bizarre motorcycle stunts, including a scene where Ethan pops a wheelie on the front tire; I'm pretty sure a lot of this defies the laws of physics. A lot of these scenes are ordained with dramatic slow-motion flames...and doves! Lots of freaking doves everywhere for no apparent reason! What do they mean?! The experience of this film is a weird one; the action can be pretty enthralling in its own right, but the build-up to it drags at times, and then when it all goes into overdrive, it's almost overbearing. A lot of scenes require a huge suspension of disbelief. Above all though, the film feels like it follows in the footsteps of so many other action films before it, such as The Rock, GoldenEye, and John Woo's own films like Hard Boiled and Broken Arrow. In the end, it feels like a tiresome "all style no substance" show.

A lot of this is because the whole plot around the Chimera virus doesn't really break new ground, and combined with the ridiculous action and style, the film feels shallow and senseless. There are a few redeeming qualities, however. Inspired by Hitchcock's Notorious, MI:2 does handle its characters well enough; the romance between Ethan and Nyah is pretty nice, the villain is a good bad guy we can love to hate, and their interactions overall gives the plot enough weight to make it work.

This film is made with some very flashy photography and editing; there are a few transitions I find gaudy, but most of the film is pretty stylish and good-looking. Tom Cruise still does his usual schtick, but it is pretty fun to watch Thandie Newton, Ving Rhames, and Dougray Scott in their roles. Brendan Gleeson and Anthony Hopkins are respectable in their small roles. Didn't care much for John Polson. Writing is not particularly great, but some of the lines are pretty amusing. This production uses some very exotic locales, sets, props, costumes, and special effects. I love Hans Zimmer's music score for this - a pretty wild blend of operatic and metal cues - and the film does use a few excellent heavy metal songs (for better or for worse).

This is a pretty odd film for the series; it's not much of a Mission: Impossible film, but it is pretty entertaining as a mindless action flick, and it does represent the height of John Woo's stylistic excesses. Genre and franchise fans should give it a try once.

3/5 (Experience: Mixed | Story: Okay | Film: Pretty Good)

For years, a third Mission Impossible movie seemed unlikely, until JJ Abrams accepted the mission to make it happen. As Abrams' debut picture, Mission Impossible III is a rip-roaring thrill ride full of color and energy.

From its first scene onwards - half of a torture scene that is ultimately revisited later in the picture - the movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. It is grittier and more violent, showing agents skirting death and disaster in the hands of dangerous villains. There are really neat scenes of infiltration and deception, including a daring operation in the Vatican and a building in Shanghai. There's also a lot of loud and frenetic action, to include a thrilling helicopter chase scene through a windfarm, a drone attacking cars on a bridge, and plenty of gunfighting.

There is plenty of action and energy to keep the film rolling at full steam ahead, without being overblown. As welcoming as the pace is, one thing keeps it from being perfect: the cameramanship. Photography is good a lot of the time, but there are a lot of scenes where the camera shake becomes erratic, and it often hinders the action more than it helps. It's not quite as awful as The Bourne Supremacy or anything, but I would have liked MI: III a grade more if the camera would settle down a bit more.

What makes this film work, thankfully, is the storytelling. It's a pretty simple and straightforward affair. The plot ultimately revolves around people fighting over "The Rabbit's Foot," the full details of which are never disclosed (although it's not too hard to figure out what it could be in the end). It's ultimately not the focus of the story; it's just a device to showcase the true conflict, which is between the hero and the villain. At this point in the series, Ethan Hunt has become a more reluctant hero, having found a woman to settle down with. When he's dragged back into action, he spurs the villain, Owen Damien, to hit back where it hurts the most. Characterization is at its best in this film; Ethan is finally given something for the audience to latch onto emotionally, and when it becomes threatened, it reveals Owen Damien to be one of the most chilling and heartless villains committed to the big screen. This simple focus on characters makes the story and action flow much better than everything that happened in the previous movies, representing a huge step-up in quality storytelling.

This film is captured with very striking photography; colors are very vivid, details are sharp, and the film looks very slick overall. Camera shake does rear its ugly head in many scenes, but for every shaky scene there's also a very good-looking scene, so it balances out. Editing is pretty sharp and concise. Tom Cruise seems to play Ethan with more maturity than before, ditching most of the cockiness and adding in a decent amount of emotional heft. Phillip Seymour Hoffman excels as the villain in a chillingly perfect performance. Michelle Monaghan is lovely in all respects, and it's great to see Simon Pegg and Maggie Q in the mix. Other actors aren't bad. Writing is pretty straightforward and good. This production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, special effects, and some real-looking locales. Music is pretty good.

The first mission had great scenes, but came off as being rather dry. The second mission was just crazy. The third time is the charm, thanks to the focus on an actual story with actual characters worth seeing. This mission comes highly recommended, even if you haven't seen the others.

4/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Good)

For over 30 years, James Cameron's The Terminator has relentlessly entertained with its punchy visual flair and its elegant narrative. It presented an iconic franchise, and it did so telling a great story with time travel that actually made sense. With three sequels of varying quality and substance, the series became rather convoluted. With Terminator: Genysis, filmmakers decided to "hit the reset button" and set a new direction for a potential new Terminator saga.

To be honest, I expected Genysis to be a horrid mess. There might be some who will label Genysis as such a mess, but personally, I was pleasantly surprised by the film's earnestness. Make no mistake though, the film does have its share of humorous banter and over-the-top action. Chief among the action setpieces, there are a lot of Terminator brawling scenes, where machines fight each other and destroy just about everything in their wake. There are car chases, and there's even a helicopter chase. The firepower is more explosive, the fights are at their most hard-hitting, and the experience as an action film is satisfying.

As with any film, it's the story that will either make it or break it. Even with a cursory glance, viewers can nitpick about plot holes and contrivances with Genysis, given the fact that all Terminator movies mess up the timeline more and more. In this case, the film takes after the first film and neglects the rest, before presenting a number of twists that splinters the plot into an alternate timeline. This time, Kyle goes back in time to find Sarah is already protected by a T-8-800, and is armed to the teeth. There are already T-1000s lurking around 1984, and everything the characters thought they knew becomes irrelevant. In spite of this, the film does one thing that the other sequels never could: it liberates itself from the original formula of The Terminator and opens up the possibilities to any number of directions. Kyle and the Connors are no longer bound to a singular timeline and forced to fulfill their established destinies; as they journey through a new and uncertain future, they confront threats old and new, and once again prove that anything is possible. Because of the way the film remixes aspects of the original film, it slickly utilizes a few scenes from the first film, and is loaded with references and familiar lines. The film adheres closely to ideas and concepts introduced in the first two films. Thus, it feels like a natural extension of the first film, and in all respects, it's a pretty fun alternate sequel.

If there is anything that hampers the storytelling, it would be the characters. They aren't terrible by any means - Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor are as great to watch as ever - but their relationship takes on a totally different dynamic, and the way it turns out in the end could have been refined more (the romance felt forced; I actually question if it's even necessary in the alternate timeline). More screen time for "Pops," John Connor, and O'Brien would have helped tremendously. Danny Dyson appears in just one scene, but I wish he could have had a much bigger role in the film.

The film is made with decent, but rarely memorable or great, photography. The camera work can be a little shaky in a few scenes, but a lot of the imagery is solid. Editing is not bad. Acting is fine for what it is: Arnold Schwarzenegger returns as the iconic Terminator, and he's still a blast to watch. I felt that Emilia Clarke's performance as Sarah Connor was appropriate. I can't say I like Jai Courney as an actor, but I have to admit that him playing Kyle Reese wasn't terrible; he looked the part, and was appropriately stoic. Jason Clarke is decent. Writing is okay, but I felt it could have used a lot of refinement, especially in defining the villains' intentions and fleshing out character relationships. Plenty of exposition is delivered regarding the various plot twists, and even though it often feels forced, it helps make sense of what could have been a screwed-up plot line. This production has pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Some special effects are great, others not so much. The music score reprises a few of the classic themes in an elegant manner, and it is really nice.

Terminator: Genysis is not nearly as bad as I expected; it won't top the first two films, but it's certainly superior to the last two. There are a few things I wish could have been better, but the film does promise a thrilling new direction for the series' future, and it promises to be quite the explosive ride.

3.5/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Okay | Film: Okay)

The human mind is a complex labyrinth of mental processes, conscious and unconscious thoughts, emotions, memories, and more. It's a muscle that's always working in complicated ways to ensure our survival in day-to-day interactions, and for human beings in particular, this extends to emotional well-being, socializing, rationalizing, communicating, and more. Few people, if any, fully understand how the human brain fully works; it's just always there, and the voices in our heads are always there to guide us through life. With Pixar's film Inside Out, filmmakers cleverly interpret neuroscience into a whole new universe where emotions are characters, memories are objects to be stored and used, and their interactions are what cause people to act the way they do.

In spite of the premise, the film definitely employs some imaginative world-building, featuring visually fantastic scenes where a person's mind is a surreal fantasy world akin to Alice in Wonderland (which in itself could be interpreted as a mental thing anyway). Within the mind of one little girl, there are "personality islands" that represents Riley's values; there's a literal "train of thought" that appears; there's a zone where "abstract thought" turns the characters into literally abstract figures; there's a film studio that makes dreams; and so much more. It's a clever way to translate what we know of the brain into literal places that are visually impressive and sometimes funny. What brings the mental landscape to life will be the characters though - the interaction between all the emotions creates plenty of hilarious comedy between themselves, and causes people to react in funny ways too. Altogether, the movie is just as cute, funny, and imaginative as Toy Story and Monsters Inc. were.

The story has two different narratives working for it. On one level, it's the simple story about Riley, the girl who has to move from rural Minnesota to San Francisco, and has to cope with all the stress of leaving behind home and living in a new place. In her head is where the bulk of the film's adventure takes place, in which Riley's Joy and Sadness both go missing and have to find their way back to headquarters before the other emotions mess up Riley's life for good. It's a pretty lightweight story on both accounts, with subtle levels of conflict. What makes the film compelling will be the characters, both external and internal. It is consistently fun to watch the emotions, for even though they are one-dimensional, their personalities clash and react in dynamic ways. Thanks to their relationships, Riley and her family are brought to life in a perfectly lovable way as well. Their struggles are struggles that we can all relate to though; the film underscores the turmoil around life changes and maturity that we all face at some point, and through those fundamental conflicts, the film reaches an emotional resonance as the characters straddle the threshold of maintaining psychological stability.

This film is crafted with top-notch animation quality. It's a bright and colorful film with plenty of imaginative designs. Lighting, textures, and rendering are all great. Movements are very lively and smooth. In some areas, it is genuinely impressive as to how big in scale some of the settings and locales are. Voice-acting is great from the whole cast, the writing is good, and the music score is appropriate.

Inside Out is cute, funny, and pretty clever, much like the other films Pixar is best known for. It deserves a look.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Content: Good | Film: Good)

Dinosaurs were resurrected with the miracle of genetic manipulation on Jurassic Park, but all attempts to control them ended in chaos and bloodshed. The pattern persisted through two more movies, and now it persists through another. This time, in the fourth film of the series, the park is finally open. Tourists flock to Isla Nublar to see living, breathing dinosaurs on exhibit. Something's bound to go wrong...

True to the formula of the series, the film starts off slow, establishing a few key characters (including kids for the narrative to anchor onto, again) before things start to go wrong. From the halfway point onwards, the film unleashes all kinds of hell when the dinosaurs inevitably break free and start wreaking havoc across the park. There are plenty of spectacular scenes in which dinosaurs stomp their way through entire crowds of hapless humans. It eventually builds up to a huge showdown between the classic dinosaurs we all know and love, and the menacing Indominous Rex.

Other things that make the film interesting will be its revamped setting - a fully working amusement park - and a few cool ideas, including the possibility of using Velociraptors in combat. You know what you're getting with the plot; it follows in the same pattern as the first film, complete with the recurring theme of chaos theory and humanity's inability to control nature. It reaches a pretty bizarre climax where the films seems to emphasize the dinosaurs in a heroic light, and it becomes a bit cheesy. What makes the film lovable will be its characters, who aren't terribly deep, but are often colorful and charming most of the time. Some of them make some pretty dumb moves, but for this series, it's to be expected. There are a couple of kids in the mix, to give us the familiar family-esque dynamic. Watching the leads comes together proves to be charming and enjoyable, thanks to their personalities.

This film is made with good photography and editing. The cast is a pretty colorful bunch: I enjoyed watching Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, and the kid characters. Other players are not bad. Writing is pretty lightweight, but it gets the job done. This production uses good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects offer plenty of incredible sequences, and are fun to watch. The music score brings back some of the classic themes, and is pretty good.

Of the Jurassic Park movies, I value Jurassic World for finally pushing the series into interesting new territory, rather than rehashing territory already explored in the other two sequels. It doesn't quite surpass the first film by any measure, but I find its characters and action more likable than the other sequels, and the film is worthwhile for any series fan.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Story: Pretty Good | Film: Pretty Good)

Genetics can unlock the secrets of creating and growing biological life; we've already used these secrets to clone a sheep, to alter our crops, and it may allow us to repopulate endangered species. In his novel, Michael Crichton explored the unique and harrowing possibility that genetics could bring the dinosaurs back. When entrepreneurs try to turn the miracle of dinosaur cloning into a theme park attraction, chaos theory kicks in, proving that nature can't be tamed that easily.

Stephen Spielberg's adaptation of Crichton's novel takes the original premise, complete with its cautionary warnings, and delivers it as a fast-moving adventure film full of color, wit, and thrills. There are moments where the film emphasizes the whimsy and wonder of creation, but when the deadliest of predators are unleashed, there are a fair amount of harrowing, suspenseful chases that follow. One of the most chilling scenes shows the dreaded Tyrannosaurus Rex breaking loose from its paddock and laying waste to a pair of jeeps, threatening to crush and eat everybody trapped inside. Velociraptors rush through the jungles and buildings, threatening to devour human prey. What starts off as a wondrous "what if" scenario eventually devolves into a struggle for survival and escape; occasional bursts of comedy keeps the film lightweight, but with groundbreaking special effects, carefully-staged action, and characters worth caring about, the film offers a grand spectacle and a perfectly-entertaining blockbuster experience.

Much of the story is altered from the original book, but it's hardly an issue. On its own merits, the film tells the story it wants to and it does it well. It flips a few of the characters around so that there's a family dynamic at work. Most of the characters are likable, and the film sets them up so that we can understand and care for them when they're in danger. Some of them make very bad decisions, but even the dumbest characters are endearing, because the film shows them as being very human and prone to mistakes; these faults ultimately contribute to the plot's progression. The plot unfolds spectacularly, continuously building in tension and action. Throughout the picture, the characters speculate and dig up fascinating themes about playing God with genetics; the film's events prove that all human attempts to control nature and force a structure will never work, and life will always find a way to break free and thrive on its own. These themes carry both wonder and terror, and the film emphasizes both aspects aptly.

This film is made with really good photography. Editing can be a little weak at times, but it is often punchy and good. Acting is pretty over-the-top, but it produces expressions and emotions that fit in perfectly with the film's tone. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are perfectly likable in their roles. Jeff Goldblum steals the show repeatedly with his character's wit and wisdom. Richard Attenborough has a great presence and personality as John Hammond. The kid characters put their best into it, and they do have some endearing moments that gives the film a more emotional punch. Bob Peck is cool, Martin Ferraro is a dude we love to hate, Wayne Knight is an even bigger dude we love to hate, Samuel L Jackson keeps it real, and everybody else is decent. This script is full of great lines, but some dialogue can be rather random, and it's all really low-key. Despite one or two shortcuts, this production uses good-looking sets, props, costumes, and creature effects. Special effects were fantastic for its time, and most of them still hold up to this day. John Williams' music score is catchy and emotional.

Jurassic Park is easily one of the best blockbusters, not only because of all its visual effects and thrills, but also because it has heart, and it has themes worth thinking about. It's a must-see.

4.5/5 (Experience: Perfect | Story: Good | Film: Good)

In the events of Jurassic Park, an entrepreneur's dream of a living biological attraction ended with bloodshed and terror. Despite the threat of dinosaurs rampaging out of control, businessmen would still vie to reap the benefits of genetically-engineered beasts from "Site B." This follow-up to the hit 1993 film aims to provide more of the same - wit, color, and action - but on a bigger scale. There are more dinosaurs to behold. People deploy more cool vehicles and weapons to hunt and capture them. More people get eaten, more are chased across the jungle, and it all leads up to a crazy finale where a T-Rex runs amok in San Diego. There are a lot of fun setpieces to behold.

There are a few things that mar the experience a little. Characters aren't quite as likable as in the first film; everyone's favorite chaotician returns and delivers plenty of sarcasm, but the family dynamic that's built around him doesn't congeal quite as well as it did with Dr. Grant and the kids in the first film. A lot of the characters in this film seem to make even dumber mistakes than in the first film, and many are unlikable. Some scenes are rather daft. Despite these issues, the plot takes off in interesting directions, showing how far a corporation will go to exploit nature. These events bring the threat of the dinosaur breakout to the civilized world in the end; the T-Rex's downtown carnage tends to be rather silly, but it does expand on the original theme that life cannot be controlled or tamed.

This film sports pretty good-looking photography and editing. It is a much more drab and darker film, with a lot of nighttime photography. Acting is okay for what it is: Jeff Goldblum returns with his signature wit, but his character isn't always likable as he's always yelling at others trying to get them to listen to reason. Julianne Moore is playful in her role, but her character makes a few dumb decisions. Peter Postlethwaite is cool, Arliss Howard plays a dork we love to hate, Peter Stormare is the same, and everybody else I could take or leave. Writing is okay; there are amusing lines, but the dialogue is not as effortlessly colorful and fun as the first film. This production uses top-notch sets, props, costumes, and special effects. John Williams' music score takes the original theme and transforms it into a wonderfully adventurous tune.

The Lost World has plenty of thrills and fun, some of which is bigger and bolder than in Jurassic Park. It's only hampered a bit by a few characters making a few dumb decisions, and a few silly scenes here and there. I always felt it was a fun follow-up, and if you enjoyed the first film, this should be worth seeing once.

3.5/5 (Experience: Pretty Good | Story: Okay | Film: Good)

I expected this movie to suck. Most reviews I see have written this off as just another fluff piece with too much CGI, too little story, and a message that seems to make everyone sick. Given all the negativity, I got the impression that I'm not supposed to enjoy this.

And yet, I found myself captivated by the film, and I became enamored by the escapist experience.

You could write this off as just another advert for a Disney theme park. The film definitely strives to wow the audience with fantastic visions of futuristic cities, rockets, jetpacks, flying cars, robots, laser guns, and more. In between all this utopian scenery, the film maintains its pace by constantly putting the characters in peril, forcing them to run from one dangerous situation to another. Action scenes are pretty frequent, and include such cool things as laser-gun firefights and robots with martial arts, all of which are captured in very solid and steady photography. In between the action, the film maintains a light and colorful tone, with plenty of snappy dialogue and humor.

The story is brimming with adventure, the likes of which would be on-par with The Neverending Story or Last Action Hero, or something along those lines. It plays into the standard scenario of a kid finding out that there's another world, and sets out to find it. The actual plot doesn't have a whole lot of dots to connect; much of the runtime is devoted to the characters leaping from one peril to another, to the point where it becomes one thing after another. There are a few parts that are unbelievable, and there may be some plot holes, but given the fantastic nature of the story, the creditability of various scenes seems to defeat the point of the picture. As far as characters go, I grew to love them; the main character is a perfectly lovable kid with passion that drives the plot, and it provides an apt reflection on the other characters, who in turn have their own motivations that make them compelling.

Plotting is not so much the highlight of the film, as it is the ideas. Tomorrowland offers a pretty fun sci-fi scenario in which the world's greatest and brightest built a utopian paradise of innovation, hidden from the rest of the world. As the characters work to find their way there, an even greater theme emerges, and all of the film's conflict becomes hinged on pessimism versus optimism. The film asserts that our world is so full of doom and gloom, and our future could become a self-fulfilling prophecy of disaster if we let it. Naturally, the characters' struggle sides with optimism, to the point where it seeps out of the picture and becomes infectious. The theme resonates with me personally, because I am a firm believer in what the film says - that the future is what you make of it. In the end, I personally found the film's message inspiring, and moving in its own way. Walt Disney himself originally built Tomorrowland into his theme parks with the motive to foster inspiration, imagination, and invention. That same spirit permeates through the Tomorrowland picture; many folks find it distasteful, probably because the film wears its heart on its sleeve all too well. I realized that this is something you won't find in any other movie this year; for once, this is a movie that made me smile, and left me feeling hopeful. Movies don't usually set out to paint a pretty picture or tell the audience that you can make things happen through your actions; this one does, and I personally find it refreshing, inspiring, and moving.

This film has good-looking photography and editing. Acting is good for what it is: Britt Robertson is perfectly colorful and fun in her role, George Clooney plays it pretty grumpy most of the time for decent effect, and Hugh Laurie is awesome. Writing probably could have been a little sharper, but I appreciated most of the dialogue. This production spares no expense on the sets, props, costumes, and special effects. Sound design is great. Music is alright.

A lot of people won't be so easily charmed by this film, maybe finding it sappy, messy, or stupid. I think this attitude only proves the film's point; if you feed the negativity, you will hate the film. If all you see is shallow CGI, then you won't care about anything the film has to say. If you can approach this optimistically and become swept away in this adventure, then maybe the film will speak to you the most. As such, I can only recommend it as a rental to those interested. I think it's a perfectly good family film, and its message is far more inspiring than anything a Marvel film or a Michael Bay film can provide.

4/5 (Experience: Good | Content: Good | Film: Good)

In another time, Max Rockatansky was a cop who watched his wife and son brutally run down by violent bikers in a world that kept getting madder and madder. After crossing the threshold of sanity and becoming "Mad Max," the world has now become a desolate wasteland, taken over by motor gangs who pillage and plunder the innocent, forever searching for gasoline to keep them going. Once again, Max is forced to match their brutality with his own.

The Road Warrior is best remembered for painting a vivid and hard-edged vision of the future, where bandits are leather-bound psychopaths who drive around in inventively-scrappy buggies and bikes. These are just a few of the details that ordains the film; the picture is filled with an incredible amount of detail that makes the post-apocalyptic wasteland look real and threatening. In this setting, the film tracks the reluctant hero Max as he confronts bandits, struggles to gain trust, and ultimately commits to a frantic escape plan. The film builds up to a memorable and well-crafted chase scene, in which a whole group of crazy vehicles run after a fortified rig. There are explosive crashes, brutal lashes of violence, and plenty of imagination to behold in this adventurous film.

The film presents its story as a kind of myth, romanticizing Max as a heroic drifter who breezes through and does what he has to. Like so many other heroes of this type, he is a reluctant one, who starts off with selfish intentions, but circumstances cause him to risk everything for the greater good. Thus, Max transforms from an antihero to a more classic form of hero, and his journey makes the film most endearing. The story advances smoothly from beginning to end with minimal drag, culminating in a satisfying climax.

This film boasts decent photography and good editing. Mel Gibson exhibits decent machismo as Max, and everybody else provides decent performances. Writing is good. This production uses very detailed and very real-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Music is good too.

Although the first Mad Max film has its share of action and style, The Road Warrior is the film that paints the most definitive picture of a post-apocalyptic world - complete with fantastic chase scenes - and it defines Max as a hero we can root for.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)