X-men Review

Today's the start of another movie review marathon. We have a movie franchise that started off big and then really hit hard by its third round; the X-men film series. Still kicking for a fifth round, let's get started on number one. 

In the not too distant future, random individuals across the globe have been given the remarkable ability of a mutant gene that grants them extraordinary powers. The world knows not how to look upon these strange people, known simply as mutants, and fear and persecution is spreading. To stand in the light of these dark times are the X-men, led by Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), mutants who intend to protect humanity from their more dangerous kind. Such enemies like Magneto (Sir Ian McKellen) and his Brotherhood of Mutants have twisted plans for the human race; plans that the two mutants Logan/Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Rogue (Anna Paquin) have fallen right into the middle of. 

Jackman truly brings the ruthless Wolverine to life like never before, every claw slashin', cigar smokin', one linerin' bit of him. Arguably the protagonist of the X-men franchise in general, his character arc does overshadow the stories of Storm (Halle Berry) and Cyclops (James Marsters). 

Sir Ian McKellen feeds Shakespearean classiness to his portrayal of the freedom fighter Magneto, threatening and yet always in control wherever he walks. Pitted against the humble and brilliant Xavier, Stewart is a perfect choice for the X-men leader. 

Director Bryan Singer knows how to make a movie like X-men both down-to-earth and exciting, by feeding balance on both sides. We get a relatable message of being a social outcast and the fantasy of a superhero mythology all snugly put together in delivery. This comic book action shows the mutants in full glory of their stunts, with support from visual effects that nail the experience. 

Where X-men fails is really giving a solid conclusion. Yeah the heroes have their victories, people walk away to do their own thing, but very much of what's set up isn't closed off by the time the credits roll. Still, what can't be denied is that when it comes to the extraordinary, the exciting and the excellent, X-men gives you what you're looking for.  

Star Trek Review

Exciting is too diminishing a word. J.J. Abram’s Star Trek is a motion picture that sends the audience on a rollercoaster that few could have expected. I saw this film in one of the smallest theatres I have been to in years and yet I still emerged from the cinema above satisfied.

The film itself sets into a new distinction of time period, not quite prequel or reboot but what can only be described as a different limb of the Star Trek tree. The story is as much creative as it is suspenseful, when the familiar crew of the starship U.S.S. Enterprise finds itself dealing with forces of its own future, with the intention of changing the past to a timeline of its own creation. With this, time travel and flashbacks are not only done well but fit the story specifically where it should be. Each member of the Enterprise crew is played to the best of the cast’s ability, with new faces to the old characters that fans remember and cherish. 

But one notable and famous character cannot help but tag along for the ride. Yes, Leonard Nimoy gets fully back into the Vulcan character of Spock not only to serve as a nostalgic element to the film but to provide a bridge between these two distant time frames. While the putting the two actors of Zachary Quinto and Leonard Nimoy as the same character in a single film is a gamble, it pays off when the former indeed is able to step into the process by going beyond a simple imitation to indeed making a character of his own. 

The action of Star Trek is phenomenal with almost no scale as an exception. Emotional performances are intriguing going from spine tingling to heart breaking. J.J. Abrams is able to weave a new vision of Star Trek’s environment by balancing well on the lines of both digital and theatrical background to the setting. Visual effects are fantastic and the musical score sets into the scenes to a level near to perfection. However, to say the film was entirely a masterpiece would be “illogical” to the viewer. Even in a new body, Star Trek suffers from one of its oldest scars: techno-babbles. 

With a plot relying on futuristic technology, there are times when the dialogue trails into scientific strategies that no one understands until they are actually executed and even at such times, the viewer still remains confused. While the comedy in the film is indeed a plus, the use of it can be labelled as unnecessary to the mood of certain scenes. 

Overall, Star Trek delivers itself one of the most intricate and epic science fiction films for our generation. J.J. Abrams knows where to grab the spectators and reel them in as new fans. Old audiences are likely to walk out smiling knowing that despite some inconsistencies to the original series, by the end of the film it adds up to a creative film that retains to its source. 

After seeing this film, I can say the franchise has certainly prospered and only hope that like the original series that it lives long. 

Taking of Pelham 123 (remake) Review

I ended up seeing the original film from about thirty to forty years ago on TV a couple of weeks before I saw this movie. I actually ended up wondering at the end if the remake would do much better. Well, actually it pulled it off almost beautifully. 

The plot revolves around a team of criminals who hijack a New York Subway and hold a group of innocent hostages for ransom. They're led by the character of Ryder, played by John Travolta, and are forced to deal with Transit Operator Walter Garber, played by Denzel Washington. Really, the filmmakers picked the right time to remake this movie. With the evolution of technology not only in the subway systems but of the average person, it truly expands the original material into something too grand to be reduced to its former state. 

First complaint, well let's look at the beginning. WHAT BEGINNING? The main characters are practically thrown into the movie with no introductions. There is no build up to the story, it's just there from the start. On the other hand, the tension in this movie grows to great heights, especially in the hands of John Travolta. That being said, I come to my biggest complaint about the movie: the writing. 


John Travolta's character really steals the show, as if it was almost on purpose. By the end of the movie, you practically have the entire character figured out, as opposed to Denzel Washington or anyone else really. I did enjoy the "relationship" between Ryder and Garber throughout the movie, and thought that even though Denzel Washington and John Travolta weren't in the same room most of the time, they played off each other nicely. If you've ever seen the film John Q, it was almost a reversal of that hostage situation. 


Compared to the original film, everything seems connected and elaborates to something brilliant. New elements are brought in and the story is great. If hijacking a subway car was a normal felony, this would be no simple crime. But the writing does have its flaws. When it comes to certain scenes, the writing is just poor and some of the acting doesn't exactly bring it to life any better. In a scene where Denzel Washington's character is talking to his wife over the phone, the way that it was written and acted out was pretty poor. There are situations where the characters behave stupidly as opposed to how it should be realistically handled. 


As for the camera work, it does handle well in this movie, with a few exceptions. In scenes focusing on Denzel Washington, they REALLY focused on him. His entire head practically fills the screen in what seems to be over a quarter of his screen time and it gets way too repetive. It definetely expanded a lot on the original movie's structure, but it has it's flaws like every other movie.

Superman Returns Review

Duh, duh, duh, duh, duh...oh wait, the John Williams theme doesn't translate well in text. 

Back in 1978, comic book fans and movie goers were astounded when Richard Donner made well on his promise that "You will believe a man can fly." This of course was the tagline to the film Superman, starring Christopher Reeve; the first installment of the four film Superman franchise. The first two films were considered big, dramatic and just down-right awesome by critics and fans alike. The second half however were labeled many things related to stupid, nonsensical and unexciting. And that's without even bringing up the 1984 Supergirl spin-off.  

But almost two decades later, director Bryan Singer decided it was time to bring the spirit of the old series to life. He dusted the material off and chose to make a distant sequel in the form of Superman Returns. 

Five years since the events of Superman II, Superman (Brandon Routh) has vanished to the edge of outer space to find the remains of his home planet Krypton to find out whether he truly is the last of his kind. He returns to Earth to find out many things have changed, including former flame Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) being engaged, a mother and an anti-Superman supporter. Speaking of the sort, criminal mastermind Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) has broken into Superman's Fortress of Solitude and stolen alien technology that he intends to use for his own sadistic goals. With the world once again at stake, Superman flies faster than a speeding bullet to get the job done. 

The first thing to address with a sequel like this is the atmosphere. Singer delicately plays with the sets, costumes and styles of characters to give the film almost a timeless feel. With that said however, it also gives Superman Returns more of a darker tone than the films it's supposed to be carrying on. Even the Man of Steel himself wears a moody, blood-red cape that gives an almost rusty demeanor. 

To that note, the cast must be appropriately examined. With the exception of Spacey's portrayal of a colder Luthor, most of the main cast brings only an adequate performance to the screen. Hollywood newcomer Routh bears much facial resemblance to Christopher Reeve, but feels a little too inexperienced to have earned the tights he wears. Bosworth is a lot more tone downed as the once bold Lois Lane that Margot Kidder was able to leave her mark with. 

The visuals of the film may have been the main reason Singer decided it was time to breathe life back into the Superman franchise. Settings like the Fortress of Solitude are digitally constructed to become breathtaking landmarks that will leave viewers stunned. It also shows off the action in a more epic fashion, but there's not a lot there which the movie takes advantage of. Superman doesn't even throw a single punch. 

Singer is able to mostly embody the spirit of the previous Superman films, but at the same time, brings little that's new to the table. The plot is structured to have little room for growth in the structure of its predecessors, making it more like a sense of nostalgia than a long-awaited Superman film. Other than the John Williams soundtrack, fans will be begging to see something, ANYTHING new. 

Inception Review

When we fall asleep, it can be astounding at how convincing the world of a dream can be to us. Christopher Nolan’s Inception shows us exactly that, but with a bit more of a practical atmosphere.

Dominic Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is both a scientist and a thief. With a group of co-workers, certain technology allows them to enter into the dream of a subject and discover secrets from their subconscious. But a new mind game is about to be played. Confronted by a man named Saito (Ken Watanabe), Cobb needs to use his technology to plant an idea into someone’s head instead of taking it. Inside of a dream world where even the unrealistic can be fooling, Cobb begins to face the terrors of his own mind while dealing with the survival of his teammates.

Nolan shows in his film that dreams can be analyzed scientifically, using laws and psychological imagery to make the world something to be understood. The dreams could be best described as an onion, with every skin being peeled back into something new but similar at the same time.

The explorers of the dream world are brought to life by a cast that dives straight into Nolan’s style of filmmaking. The script is made for a somewhat basic guide to “dream-walking”, with the writers hoping viewers will follow it with as minimal difficulty as possible. Audience members will have to have sharp sight, hearing and memory while watching the film. They could get easily lost in some of the psychological “mumbo jumbo” dialogue.

Many things that would be common questions from a dreamer will be explored, but not necessarily answered. The viewer will see the mind as something both mysterious and maybe even a little dangerous, but that’s where the fun in Inception begins.

The visual effects, cinematography and action are intertwined beautifully for this picture. The use of optical illusions and bending the laws of physics is something that makes it both head-spinning but intriguing. Inception’s style of music is a fascinating score, with heavy brass and strings giving the world an intricate and almost constructive feel to it.

For a dream world, don’t expect the atmosphere to get too imaginative. Granted, you will be dazzled by what you see, but the dreams stand on almost realistic ground. There are no psychedelic vortexes or kooky cartoons, it’s a world very similar to our own except with a much wider design of reality. Nevertheless, Inception is something you will very likely rest your head on at night and hope to remember before you wake up the next morning.