Change Your Image
brandoncarlk
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Story V DC
Spoilers at the end!
This movie is better than I thought it would be. I had low expectations because of Man of Steel and other Zack Snyder films, but this was enjoyable. If you'd have asked me five years ago how I felt about Ben Affleck being Batman, I would have went into a blind rage at the thought of it. But he's been working on his acting skills and is easily the best part of this movie. Bruce Wayne/Batman's motivations are clearly laid out and understandable. He gets the most screen time and development so his part of the story makes sense. Superman, while competently portrayed by Henry Cavill, just isn't nearly as developed and the movie, and future DC movies, suffer from this (more on that in spoilers below.) Lex Luthor is just a mess; it's never clear why he wants Superman and Batman dead. How these three relate is the movie and how they relate is the problem.
This is a slow movie, at the start. Kids likely won't like this movie because there just isn't a lot of action. Most of the fight between Batman and Superman is behind each other's backs, until the third act. I didn't mind the pace (slow movies can still be engaging) but I can see why others will. This movie is also a lot of setup for the Justice League. I suspect Zack Snyder wanted to make a different movie, but DC and Warner Bros wanted him to include the extended DC Universe.
When the action does pick up, it's really good. The visuals, just like all of Snyder's films, are very beautiful. The fight choreography is really good and every fight is exciting even when the end fight has a lot of CG that isn't very convincing.
Overall, I did enjoy the film, but not everything sold me. You might not want to bring the kids because the pacing and themes might be a bit much to hold their attention. I was thoroughly engaged, but not everyone will be.
MAJOR SPOILERS
At the very end, Superman makes the ultimate sacrifice, but since his motivations haven't been fully fleshed out, it not only lessens the impact, but we haven't seen Superman being good. The movie appears to be setting up the Injustice storyline. While that's fine, Superman's decent into evil will lose a lot of meaning, when he gets resurrected. It skipped a lot of steps to make that particular story happen.
The Life Zone (2011)
A pro-life movie that should have been aborted
If you're going to make a movie that tries to persuade people to your beliefs, make sure you have confidence in what you're arguing. The movie is about three women who wake up in a dark, green- filtered, grungy hospital; they were planning on having an abortion, but they were captured and now they're being forced to give birth. It tries to visually emulate the Saw franchise, but instead of the characters being tortured, the audience is tortured with bad acting, annoying characters, boring dialogue and pitiful attempts at horror.
There is one woman who is adamant about having an abortion. She's basically a straw-man who only spouts easily refuted arguments. This is where the movie shows its lack of confidence. If they truly felt like they were in the right, they wouldn't resort to making this character the way they did (i.e. immature, rude, prissy, entitled, stuck up). Instead, they would have created a real challenge for their position and countered it with clever arguments and thought experiments.
I've seen thoughtful, insightful arguments for both positions, and none of them are in this film. This film won't convince anyone nor would it give people who are pro-life any better ammunition for their position.
Aside from the debate, it also fails when it attempts horror movie tropes. It tries to use scary film techniques and settings, but doesn't know how to implement them, or just doesn't know how they work. I've seen high school students with better skills than this.
I could go on about how most of the movie is just watching people debate, how nobody acts realistically, or the bizarre and confusing plot twist about one of the characters, but all I need to say is that this is a padded, boring movie that is more interested in making fun of someone rather than truly engaging in a discussion.
Jurassic World (2015)
A hybrid of numerous intentions
This is one of the most divisive movies that I've seen in a while. It's one of those "Love it or hate it" where everybody has such intense feelings for it. I think that's because there are two main ideas of what a Jurassic Park movie should be. Is it a cerebral franchise that illustrates the hubris of humanity's attempts to control nature or is it just a fun monster movie romp with thrills and chills? I guess that's up to the audience so I won't tell you how you should judge the movie on those standards. I'm just going to judge it from your basic movie going perspective.
Let me just say that all the dinosaur fights were fun, I almost always laughed at the comic relief, the story was easy to follow with generally believable character motives, and it moved at a nice pace. Some of the acting was pretty good. Chris Pratt was a fun character, and probably the best thing going for this movie. I do have complaints though: Vincent D'Onofrio's character was entirely one-dimensional, the CGI just isn't always convincing, and there are a lot of moments throughout the film that just strain your credulity. I realize it's a movie with dinosaurs come to life but it was a bit much at times. It even has a number of monster movie clichés that make the movie a bit predictable.
I enjoyed my time with the movie, but it wasn't always as tense as it could have been. I guess if you judge it as a monster movie, it's fine. In all honesty, the plot felt like a Syfy original monster movie, only with a sizable budget and bankable actors - that's not entirely as bad as that sounds. If you're looking for something intellectually stimulating that forces you to think about the human condition, you might have a little meat, but you're going to be left hungry. Your enjoyment boils down to what you expect from the franchise.
Leprechaun: Origins (2014)
Like knock-off Lucky Charms without any marshmallows
If you watched this movie without knowing the title, you'd have no idea that this is supposed to be a reboot of the Warwick Davis Leprechaun movies. It seems as though labeling a movie as a "reboot" means nothing more than taking an original movie, strip it of anything unique to it or the franchise, and fill it with modern/generic horror tropes, clichés, and effects.
The Leprechaun looks and sounds nothing like a short man who wears a lot of green. Instead, it's merely a generic underground-dwelling monster like the ones in the Descent. So there's no funny rhymes or quips; it just growls and snarls. There's no leprechaun lore represented with any magic or spells. It's just a naked monster with leathery skin that can see in the dark and is kind of fast.
This takes place in Ireland and the locals are super-scared of this thing and they don't want to make it upset. Really? You're Ireland! You're supposed to be tough guys. Call the IRA to take care of this chump and your problems are solved. I have no idea why the locals let this thing boss them around. The monster causes such a problem that they resort to drastic measures to appease it. The monster isn't invincible and it's killed easily. The movie ends with the image of more of the monsters, but who cares? They don't seem all that intimidating against the tough Irish folk.
The main cast is filled with stock characters that have nothing to them, whatsoever. They're boring, and annoying. Plus, the two male leads have hot girlfriends, and the guys actually turn down an opportunity to sleep with them. The movie couldn't even give us that kind of cheap thrill.
Stay away from this movie. Even the worst of the Warwick Davis films have more entertainment value than this sleeping pill. Either watch those or the Descent.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
There are some strings that hold it down
I feel people are being unnecessarily harsh with this movie. While it's not perfect, it still has everything a summer blockbuster movies should have, sadly with a little extra baggage.
The story and setup is simple enough to follow along and has some ideas and themes that are fun to think about. It's nothing really deep, but it adds some meat whereas another blockbuster franchise, Transformers, has nothing like it. Every action sequence was fun, and they all felt as though they belonged and didn't feel too random or out of place.
Most of the characters are still just as great, and Hawkeye was developed even more since he got the short end in the first movie. The only major stumbling blocks are the romance between the Hulk and Black Widow, and Thor's side-quest. The former felt unearned and it was confusing since she had more chemistry with other characters. The latter felt like padding. Ultron was actually snide and funny, which is different than the solely-menacing villain in the trailers. That's not a bad thing but it was unexpected and he still was quite menacing.
The humor was mostly spot on, and I think that helps because with a character that looks like the Vision, this film should not take itself too seriously. There are two running gags that start at the beginning and get funnier as the film goes on, both ending with a good pay-off.
This isn't as good as the first, but it's still well-worth watching. This is what audiences really want when they're only looking for a simple story, engaging characters, fun action and spectacle. It's pure escapism and entertainment.
**SPOILERS** **SPOILERS** **SPOILERS**
Another thing that really bugged me was there was a character who was mostly introduced in this film, and he dies at the end. Sure he's given opportunities to be heroic, but his brief appearance hindered the impact. It feels like a waste.
**END SPOILERS**
White Chicks (2004)
This movie thinks you're stupid
I don't understand why there is such support for this movie. I think it's because Shawn and Marlon Wayans have an unrequited loyal fan-base who support two actors that only want to create lazy, cheap comedies.
There's hardly any real jokes in this movie. Instead, you get clichéd gender-swap gags that have been done better in older movies. For example, a man-in- drag gets mad and sounds masculine; everyone looks at him confused; man- in-drag then talks in silly feminine voice then the once-confused people laugh it off as just a rare quirk (this happens too many times in this movie and you'll see every one of them coming). There are no likable characters. Instead, everyone seems incompetent, stupid, obnoxious with the only tolerable being those who don't have a lot of lines or screen-time.
The only other kind of jokes are overly contrived and unrealistic sequences forcing the Wayans brothers to feel uncomfortable, and worry that their cover will be blown. Who cares if they lose their job at the FBI? They never demonstrate why they deserve it in the first place. None of the gags work because they're poorly written, with no comedic timing, and they happen to characters we don't care about.
I'm not asking for this movie to make some powerful statement on the human condition. I don't expect some high-brow, masterpiece of cinema that reaches into my core. The least I expect are likable/relatable/endearing characters, funny situations that happen to said characters, believable situations, interesting developments in a story and I don't want to be annoyed. This movie has none of those things and almost derides you for expecting them (Many of this movie's fans sure deride you for that.) Instead of this, watch a comedy that has respect for you, doesn't insult your intelligence and actually has some effort put into it.