TRAIN TO BUSAN Review

I just heard about TRAIN TO BUSAN about 4 hours before writing this review. One of my favorite websites, io9, mentioned a movie that they described as “Zombies on a Train.” Being a horror movie fan, and having a particular warm spot for zombies, this piqued my interest. Living in Hawaii, I assumed it wouldn’t come here. But io9 luckily provided the movie’s website which had a list of all the theatres it was playing at. I looked through and saw that Hawaii did, in fact, have 1 theatre showing the film. I checked movie times and saw one last show of the night was in 45 minutes. The theatre was 40 minutes away, so I grabbed my keys and started driving.

From the trailer I expected to have a great time with the film. Anytime you throw zombies in a movie you have to expect a lot of silliness. But I’m a fan of the silly horror movies as long as they’re fun and not completely insulting my intelligence. And I’ve been let down by a premise such as “Zombies on a Train” before… I’m looking at you Snakes on a Plane… I’m glad to say that TRAIN TO BUSAN delivers exactly what you’d expect: Fun, savage zombie carnage. But what I didn’t expect was to be emotionally drawn into the film.

Yes. You read that correctly. This is something a lot of American horror movies lack. A heart. It’s one reason why most horror films suck. We don’t get attached to the characters so when the horror happens we don’t feel anything. Horror films that focus only on the scares or the gore aren’t as fun because we have no connection and therefore no stakes in anything going on. It’s very similar with action films.

One thing I must clarify is these aren’t slow zombies. No. These are fast zombies that the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake popularized. Not as absurd as WORLD WAR Z zombies. It’s more along the lines of 28 DAYS LATER. The infection spreads quickly and causes some very weird, yet cool reanimations. Some don’t even get a chance to die before turning. But those that do have frightening twitches before almost leaping up on their feet. If the movie hadn’t already pulled me in at this point then it could have easily come off as silly.

I have to come back to this because it’s so important to why this film works so damn well. I cared about these characters. A lot. This is a horror movie, a zombie flick, and it pulled tears out of my eyes. Yes. A silly zombie movie made me shed tears. Not just once, either. It not only has its main character have a fully fleshed out arc, but some of the side characters get their great moments and a few get some nice arcs as well. I didn’t care for all the characters that were around the main 2, but the majority of the core set were great. There is a “villain” (for lack of a better word) who is too cliché and annoying. I hated that one character. I know we’re supposed to, and it is a realistic character given the situation. But I think it could have been handled better. Thematically it works, though. The movie does stress the importance of selflessness and even takes a scene to show how dangerous irrational fear can be in one of my favorite scenes of the movie.

I know I haven’t talked much about the action. Don’t worry, I will. The action is great. The scares are great. But I can’t emphasize enough about how much this movie really benefits from having that strong emotional core. I really wish more movies, especially American horror and action films, would really learn from movies like this and take the time to establish a strong connection as a foundation for the action.

Now with that said, when TRAIN starts chugging along (I had to throw in one of these) it is exciting as hell. Wonderfully staged set pieces ranging from all hell breaking loose at a train station, guys having to fight their way through several train cars full of zombies, a couple times running after a train to get on, and even trying to sneak passed the zombies. It’s all incredibly exciting. The action set pieces are fun while the more tense scenes kept my knuckles in my mouth.

The zombies are frightening. The make up for the zombies is fantastic. The way they all moved was really unnerving. It’s also the first zombie movie I’ve seen (other than SHAUN OF THE DEAD) that actually refers to the zombies as zombies. Think about it. When was the last time you heard a zombie movie use the word “zombie.” Granted, it only uses the word once and it isn’t spoken, but I was glad it still put that in there. But it doesn’t assume you know anything about zombies. Which brings me to another point that American films are becoming very poor at…

Show, don’t tell. You get turned into a zombie by being bitten. Yet not one character ever says this. One of the first zombies we see doesn’t start as one. She’s a regular person with a bit mark on her leg. Now, if you’ve seen a zombie movie before you already know what’s going to happen. But the movie uses this scene to establish this. It puts the bite mark center frame. Then shows the character suffer and die. Then the character gets reanimated and immediately attacks the closest person. Within moments that person dies and shortly after reanimates and attacks the next person. This establishes how the infection spreads and how quickly it takes effect and what the infection does. Other characters see this but there’s never a moment in the film where two characters say to each other “I think it spreads through the bites.” It doesn’t say this BECAUSE IT JUST SHOWED US! And it showed the characters seeing it happen.

Even though BUSAN has some faults. Some of the CG is kind of bad. Never terrible to the point where it took me out of the film, but noticeable. I can’t really comment much on the acting with it being a foreign film, but I did believe all the actors. And sometimes the score was a little off for the scene. But none of that matters too much as BUSAN is just so much fun. TRAIN TO BUSAN is fun zombie carnage for those who just want the excitement with a meatier emotional core who want something more filling. One of my favorite films of the year.

HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION

Original post HERE

DAY 5 (Web Series) Review

This week I was mulling over which movie I wanted to review. JASON BOURNE was the first pick, but almost everything I’ve heard about it was pretty bad. Then I thought about BAD MOMS or NERVE... then I realized I have to do laundry and I think that’s more important. So what’s something I can review from home that’s fairly new? Oh yeah, DAY 5 is approaching its season finale this Sunday, why not that?

I may be a bit biased as I’ve been a fan of Rooster Teeth for well over a decade. Almost right after moving to Hawaii a friend showed me an episode of Red Vs Blue and I became immediately hooked. I’ve seen the company grow from just a few guys making a little Halo series to a full blown multi-million dollar company with their own expo. It’s been a wild ride. So, of course I’m always excited about everything they do and most of their content is at least really good. So when I saw they were doing a post-apocalyptic web series, I was on board.

DAY 5 was conceived mostly as a way to make an apocalypse film on a low budget. The premise is that one day, sleep became fatal. If you fall asleep, you die. If you’ve ever tried staying away for more than a day, you know not only how hard it is but what it does to you. So to make sleep fatal is pretty scary.

As the title suggests, the show takes place 5 days after this event occurred. So all the characters in the show have been awake for a while. Each person has their own reason why. The lead character, Jake was on a drug bender, Sam, the first person Jake meets, is a young kid who we never really get a reason why. Ally was working a graveyard shift at a hospital, and Ellis was a pilot for a red eye flight. They all come together by chance, but Ellis thinks he may know how they can find the origin of what caused the event.

Each episode is a lot bigger than Rooster Teeth has done before. Typically going with 5-15 minute episode web series, DAY 5 clocks each episode at around 45 minutes. It’s quite a task, and it does show that they are fairly new to this format. Not all the seams are ironed out and there are some pacing issues with each episode. But the guys at Rooster Teeth are competent filmmakers. They know how to get some really nice shots, set up scenes, and write really good, dynamic characters.

Comedy has always been RT’s strongest attribute. The majority of RT’s content is comedy and DAY 5 is a full on drama. There is a lot of comedy in the show to keep it grounded and the characters relatable, but it’s focused more on making you care about what’s happening rather than making you laugh. And, for the most part, I do. I want to see what’s causing the phenomena. I want to see these characters make it through this. I’m worried when things get difficult.

While DAY 5 does some pretty cool things with its concept I don’t think it did enough with it. If you’ve ever stayed away for an entire day or even tried to go for 2 you know how crazy you feel. The physical exhaustion is one thing, but you start to get delirious. Visual and audible hallucinating is very common for people with sleep deprivation. Knowing that even if you lay down you may close your eyes and die might drive you to do crazy things. And there’s episodes that touch on these things, but it feels more like an episode gimmick than an ongoing thing. And for people who’ve been awake for 5 days they’re pretty well focused for the most part. I just wish it did a bit more with the side effects rather than just flash them for an episode then leave it at that.

DAY 5 is a short series. 5 episodes (plus one side story short) are out right now and the 6th and final episode releases Sunday. The show’s far from perfect. But it’s fresh take on the apocalypse and does some pretty fun things for a low budget show. It’s also short enough to where it doesn’t outstay its welcome or the idea well dries up.

RECOMMENDED

Original post HERE
Watch DAY 5 HERE

STAR TREK BEYOND

The new Star Trek universe has had some major ups and downs. Coming right out of the gate with a bang, STAR TREK was a fantastic film. Not just for Star Trek fans, but for new fans as well. J.J. Abrams, for better and worse, made Star Trek a lot of fun. It put more emphasis on the spectacle rather than the science. This does cause some disappointment with long-time fans (rightfully so). But still, that first film is a solid 9/10.

The second Star Trek movie, INTO DARKNESS, was a real mess. What made it worse was the producers and Director J.J. Abrams himself lied to fans. The whole "It's not Khan" then it turns out that was a lie and it was Khan. While that itself doesn't really take away from the film, the film itself just doesn't make much sense. It's way too much spectacle for spectacle's sake and too little about the characters and focuses too much on nostalgia and "Hey, know how they did this in Star Trek before? Now we doing the same thing, but opposite." Just a mess and a movie I have no desire to revisit. 4/10

So that brings us to STAR TREK BEYOND. I was hesitant to say the least. I really didn't like the previous film and was worried this was going to be a one-off franchise trying to milk it as long as it possibly can like ICE AGE. Bringing aboard Justin Lin from the FAST AND FURIOUS franchise was a nice touch along with Simon Pegg on co-writing details. It made me cautiously optimistic about the film. Sure enough, it's light years BEYOND... sorry... ahead of STID, but it doesn't have that magic that the reboot had.

Half of BEYOND works incredibly while while the other half bounces between competent and messy. First thing that comes to mind is how beautiful the film looks. The visual detail is astounding. The nebulas, planets, spaceship interiors, all look great. The stand out visual piece was the space station called Yorktown -- kind of an odd name, but whatever. It reminded me of the Citadel from the Mass Effect series. A hub for the enterprise with a weird gravitational setup. While I understood why the Citadel basically used centripetal force to make its gravity the way it was, Yorktown just seemed kind of odd. Visually it's amazing. But the science side of me just questions the logic behind it. And when it kind of gets explained I guess it works, but I still am not sure if I buy it. But most of that was afterthought and when the movie was going on I just accepted it.

One major criticism by Trekkies is the new universe is trying too hard to be Star Wars. And if you don't understand what that means, it basically means they're turning more into action movies than science-fiction movies. And this criticism isn't wrong. Even though it's not as true as STID. For me, I'm all for it. It does need to smooth its direction out a little bit more, but it's getting a lot better. Most of the action set pieces are stunning. The main problem is when it gets to hand-to-hand combat. The series has had terrible fight sequences. They're just awful. BEYOND does nothing to help. In fact, it may be the worst. Every fight scene is shot way too close and way too shaky and cut way too quick to get a feel for what's going on. There is one fight scene that is decently shot, but it suffers from other problems. One of the new characters mentions a key moment of her past which sets up a fight with the main villain's right-hand. But because we have no idea who any of the villains are (more on this in a bit) when the time comes for this fight to happen I had no idea why it was so important. Then the characters have a face-to-face moment and mentions something and it clicks. But this is bad. When you have a character moment like this, a character facing the actual thing that has shaped who that character is to this point, you need to make the stakes completely clear BEFORE you get to the actual moment.

Which leads me to the problem with the villains. What the villains got right was their threat. These guys are not to be messed with. They will wreck you. Completely. It's a terrifying threat. Not just because they have the capability to completely destroy everything you own. But the ways they are able to do it are terrifying. And there's several ways some of the hero's fodder bite the dust. Let's face it, even with real threats, you know in a franchise like this the main characters are safe, even if you don't feel it in the moment. And this movie does that really well. Even though you KNOW Kirk and Spock and Chekov and Scottie, and everyone else are going to live. You still feel that tension. I'll call that a big plus for the villains.

However, the villains themselves, while intimidating, are really bland. Idris Elba is one of my favorite actors and I feel he is kind of wasted here. He does a fine job, but the character is so basic, and his backstory isn't revealed until so late, that I just didn't really care for him. I get him. I understand him (kinda). But I don't care. But that's fine because the threat he poses is real enough to be worried. Oh, and he has a bunch of henchmen. Two I think get names, but I couldn't tell you what they were. You won't really care anyway.

Side note: this may just be me, but every time they said the villain's name "Krall" I kept visualizing Pauly Shore... If you get why... *high five*

I also want to note the movie sometimes assumes things of its audience. There's a key point in the film where a main character has a revelation about another character because of a small detail. It seems like a complete stretch unless you know that that character is really good at that particular thing. I know that seems vague, but giving details would be a minor spoiler. But this is a detail not established in this film. It was a detail established 2 films ago. So unless you saw that film, and cared enough about that character to know that about them, this would seem like reaching. This could have been resolved if earlier in the film they had this character do this as part of that character's job then you'd be like "OK. That makes sense."

I know that seems like nit-picking, and it kind of is. But the movie has several small moments like this. While each individual moment isn't enough to knock the film too much, it does show either some lazy writing or just missing it in some proof reads.

Most importantly, though, the movie is a lot of fun. That was the main failings of STID, it was boring. Here, the characters are fun again. There's heart to the movie. You care about what's going on -- even if it does get illogical at times. And the movie is funny. Making Simon Pegg a writer was a brilliant move that gave so much life to this film. So many small, funny moments really bring life to the film. My favorite one being when they had Beastie Boys playing (which was relevant to the plot) one character asked "Is this classical music?" This is brilliant not just as a great joke, but it's great world-building.

STAR TREK BEYOND definitely takes steps in the right direction for this franchise even if it's not quite yet on the right path. It makes me rather excited for the next entry which is a relief given how I almost gave up after STID. A great popcorn flick for the summer despite some glaring flaws. Probably going to get this on Blu-ray when it comes out.

RECOMMENDED

https://www.facebook.com/notes/vgh-events/movie-review-star-trek-beyond/1553189624990708

Expendables 3

The Expendables is an interesting franchise. The first movie was a big deal because it was kind of like a wet dream of '80s nostalgia with a super group of over-the-hill '80s action stars coming together for one final ride. But of course, Hollywood is involved and they like milking cows until they run dry so another one came out. Both of the two films were advertised as the "one last ride." Yet we all knew that if they made money they'd be getting back in line for the merry-go-round once again. It didn't really bring anything new to the table. Expendables wanted to stay too close to what made the '80s action movies what they were for better and for worse. You were either on board for something that was not much more than a celebration of what movies that these guys did back in their heyday, or you rolled your eyes and just wished it would be over with.

Staying pretty close to Expendables formula, the third film goes forward without much changing. We get two action set pieces right out of the bat that are fun, but shallow. Really not much invested in whether or not these people are going to make it or not, but then again, it's not really about that. This is just eye candy for people who like action. Not to say they don't have moments of creativity. You don't ever feel like anyone's in any real danger. But it's still entertaining.

First we spend time with some of the old crew. Even though we spent two movies with these characters, no one other than Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham feel like they're really characters. Everyone else just feels like they're there for name sake and a cool piece of the action here and there. Everyone has their own personality, but I don't feel like I know who they are. Now, given there are more than a dozen characters in this film, you can't expect everyone to be fully fleshed out. Guardians of the Galaxy did it with their main 5 plus a couple more, but that movie's focus was the characters. The Expendables 3's main focus is the action.... for the most part.

After the first two action set pieces, probably about 15 minutes of the first 20 of the film, there's a bit of a lull. Terry Crews sort of gets the Jet Li treatment from Expendables 2 and we don't see much of him. There's a lot of talking and "plot development" (I use that term very loosely). Then we get this cool scene with Kelsey Grammer coming in and introducing us to the new, younger members of the team. Now, I can't tell you for the life of me any of the new character's names. Maybe it was the beers I had before coming in or me just not really caring, but it's really not that important. I can tell you there's a hacker/adrenaline junkie, a femme fatale-ish, someone who we were told doesn't like taking orders but I can't recall a moment where he had a problem doing so but he was better than Vin Diesel on a motorcycle with less wire work, and someone else.

Once the new crew is all together we get another action set piece. Here's where this film strays from the previous two.... a bit. Because the old crew is all from the '80s (except Terry Crews who isn't an action star but should be), the style was typical '80s bust in guns blazing, which we get with the first two set pieces. Here we get a nice contrast between the old-school and new-school. Tactical, well-planned, quiet at first but not afraid to kick ass when shit goes down. It was a nice change of pace from all the other moments from all the other Expendables movies. And we actually see a younger Expendable do more than just die for plot purposes (sorry, Thor's younger brother).

Of course things go wrong and the old team has to come in and save the new team. Then the new and the old team work together in the big final set piece. It's all good and fun. It does what it wants to do. There's no real sense of danger. I didn't feel like anyone is going to be killed. But things are just so gloriously destructive that I didn't give a crap. Anonio Banderas and Wesley Snipes are the new older guys to come in, but Antonio Banderas just steals the show. I know this is sort of cliché to say, but he knows exactly what this movie is. While everyone else is being so serious (which works), he's just chewing up the scenery. Everything he does is hilariously brilliant. Even the way he runs from chopper fire had the audience laughing. But he's more than just comic relief, he's a badass while doing so. I would pay to see a movie of Antonio Banderas playing this character as a lead. There just isn't enough of him here.

What else is there to say about this movie? Plot? Something about going after an old friend turned enemy and saving the new crew from him. It's not important. It's just a reason to go from one set piece to the next. The movie starts out fast, then slows down a bit too much in the middle, so if you have to go to the bathroom, you can go and not have to worry about missing anything important. Mel Gibson is servicable, but not as entertaining or as threatening as Jean Claude Van Damme in Expendables 2. He doesn't do anything to make you really hate him.

Is the movie good? Depends on your definition of "good." It's stupid, paper thin and predictable, but it's also well executed, sporadically creative and fun. Just don't expect much new with this one. I think I enjoyed it more than the last two, but then again I can't really remember the other two more than I enjoyed them as cheesy as they were.

RECOMMENDED if you enjoyed the first two movies.

Ninja Mutant Turtle Teenagers Review

Like many boys who grew up in the 90's, I loved the Ninja Turtles. I unfortunately wasn't one to collect comics for a few reasons. First, I didn't get an allowance, so no money. Second, my mom didn't buy them for me. Third, I didn't know any comic book stores near me. But I loved the live action movies and the 90's cartoon. I even immersed myself in the video games, both the good and the bad.

Just recently I purchased the 4 previous films on blu-ray, the 3 live-action and the animated TMNT. I've rewatched them all, and they don't quite hold up to where I held them as a kid. Quickly going through them, the first one I still thing is a solid movie for what it is. It gets the emotion, the comedy, the sense of family, and the action, and that's all that really matters. The second one is fun if you don't think about it too much. We all know the angry mothers who were saying the first one was too violent brought the action level down quite a bit for the second one, but oh well. Still a nostalgically enjoyable film at the very least. The third movie... oh god, the third movie... Let's not talk about that third movie... TMNT was the only one I was able to see in theatres. I enjoyed it then, and I enjoy it now. It's not great, but it's serviceable. I also liked how it followed along with the cannon of the first 3 films. Although, it's kind of both cool and weird when you think about it...

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the new one, raised a mixed set of emotions when it was announced. First, "Awesome! New Turtles movie!" Then, "Oh, shit. Michael Bay..." Luckily, after a lot of fiddling around with a variety of different pre-production issues, good news arose. Bay wouldn't direct (score!), but would still be producing (damn). Jonathan Liebesman (Battle: Los Angeles, Wrath of the Titans) would be directing instead (Both his last two movies I thought were bad scripts he did decently with) and the movie wasn't going to be all Dark Knight grim and dark.

Thank god they didn't go and Dark Knight the Turtles. What made TMNT so great was the light-hearted fun. The turtles were teenage brothers who bickered, made quips, and tried having a good time even when fighting crime. Now days everything has to be so brooding and dark and gritty. Even Spider-Man (Sam Raimi's version, and to some extent Marc Webb's version) seemed to have forgotten what it meant to be fun. Knowing that it's OK to not take yourself so seriously all the time is one reason why I praised Guardians of the Galaxy so much last week. Unfortunately, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles won't be receiving nearly as much love.

The movie isn't terrible. With everything going on in pre-production, TMNT could have been a train wreck. Luckily, it's got enough going for it to stop me from being angry with the film, but not enough going for it so say much more than that. And just to get it out of the way, yes, there are changes from the source material. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, SO STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT! That isn't what's wrong with this movie.

I expected a little bit from from the writers of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. The story is pretty stupid, to say the least. The last act of the film is pretty much the exact same as The Amazing Spider-Man with a little taken from the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. We spend a bit too much time with April O'Neal, horribly acted by Megan Fox, and not enough with the Turtles. What I mean is, it's about 60/40 April and the Turtles. We do spend more time with the human characters, but the green foursome... sorry, I just had a moment... is in this movie quite a bit. The overall goal of the villain is kind of silly. And the way the go about it is even sillier. I mean, the original movie didn't have much of a goal more than "punish the turtles." But at least it was simple and understandable. Here, it's a bit more needlessly complicated and convoluted. The plot isn't hard to follow, but it just doesn't really make too much sense motivation wise.

While The Shredder is menacing, he's a bit too over-the-top. They do a good job of making him more fierce and a badass than the original film. However the flashiness to him just screams "trying too hard." He could have been simplified and still been a badass villain. In fact, everything could have been simplified and still achieved the same effect.

The design of the turtles has been the subject of a lot of controversy. Watching the movie, it doesn't really bother me as much as the stills or trailers. But the CG is so obviously CG that it does kind of take me out of the movie. The brothers have so many pieces of flair they look like they're applying for a job at Chotchkie's. Donnie would bring Brian to shame.

Fortunately, their overdone designs aren't too distracting when everything is moving. Thankfully the pacing of the film is quick once the brothers show up. The first act following April is pretty bland. Once the turtles show up, they stay on screen the majority of the rest of the film. Because we are mainly following April, we do leave them for a while here and there, and those bits do drag. But when it almost gets to be too much, the turtles show back up.

I don't know what it is with Michael Bay and a lot of these movies now, but we don't always need a human character to follow in these types of movies. They need to look at movies like Hellboy 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy to see that we can follow along with these non-humans through the story without our hands being held.

What makes it kind of worse that we spend too much time with April is that the time with the turtles and Splinter is pretty damn good. Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo act and feel like real brothers, and Splinter like their father/mentor. The comradery going on between them feels genuine. I got a real sense that these ludicrously massive turtles were brothers, or at least believed they were. The time spent with them is fun. The movie should have been focused mainly on that. Had it been, I probably would have liked it a lot more.

We do get some pretty good action sequences. There's two sort of teaser action moments where we first get a glimpse of what the turtles can do without being really introduced to them yet. After we meet them, you get your typical three big set pieces. All three of them well set up and executed. The camera hardly ever goes in too close or shakes too much to where you can't see what's going on. There is a sense of danger throughout the battles to keep them engaging. All four turtles get several moments to be a badass. And even though Splinter only has one scene to kick ass, he really kicks ass. It was pretty cool to see the sensei show why he is the master.

I probably had more fun with this film than I should have. There wasn't enough time spent with the turtles for this movie to be what it should have been. The writers may not have gotten many things right, but I think the director knew how to accentuate what was good: the family bond between the four brothers and their father/mentor, Splinter, the overall good nature of the turtles, the eagerness to help out. It's a lot of what I really loved about Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles growing up. And I think I'm just grateful that this movie didn't end up nearly as bad as it could have been. And I don't think it's as bad as Ninja Turtles 3.

I'm honestly not sure if I can RECOMMEND this movie or not. I guess...

SOMEWHAT RECOMMENDED if you can overlook obvious shortcomings, but
NOT RECOMMENDED if you're going in hoping for more than an OK film.

Guardians of the Galaxy

Marvel has been on a roll. Ever since Iron Man came out Marvel has been reigning king of the summer movies. Sure, some movies have made more money. But no other company has been putting out solid movie after solid movie without any major missteps. To make it even more impressive, the continuity between all ten films so far is one of the cleanest and consistent of any movie franchise. I'm sure there are errors here and there between each movie. But the universe is so large and well planned out that it's pretty tight.

Other than Thanos and The Collector (along with some other nice easter eggs), Guardians of the Galaxy is pretty stand-alone in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I think that works out in favor for Guardians. As we saw with Iron Man 2, and a bit with Thor, Guardians doesn't have any need to cram any unnecessary exposition or universe building that's specifically for the upcoming Avengers movie. There's no mention of Shield, Tony Stark, no cameo by Agent Coulson or Nick Fury. Guardians of the Galaxy is here to for the Guardians and no one else. Writer/Director James Gunn (Slither, Super, PG Porn) was given a lot of freedom with this movie. With that freedom, he's created my favorite, and possibly the best, Marvel movie, and possibly comic book or super hero movie, yet.

Guardians of the Galaxy has one of the best blends of serious and goofy I've seen in a movie all year. Mixing the two can be a dangerous thing. Too much of either without the right sensibility or timing can leave a bad taste in your mouth. This is something Gunn seems to have a knack for. Slither, Gunn's directorial debut, is one of the best horror-comedies that actually has a nice balance of both without being a parody like Shaun of the Dead. While Super tiptoes along a very thin line of depressingly real and darkly hilarious without falling over onto either side. Guardians has these powerful moments of emotional depth and some of the most laugh-out-loud moments all year. It's serious enough to be heart-crushing one scene, yet goofy enough give us a fun song and dance the next scene.

I was emotionally invested from the first scene. Much like Up, within minutes I'm trying to keep my eyes dry. I thought to myself, "Seriously? It's barely 2 or 3 minutes into this thing and you're trying not to sob?" I wasn't sure if it was because the movie was that good or I had already been ready to accept this movie because of the build up I've given it for the past year or so. Upon a second viewing I've decided that the movie is indeed that good. This scene isn't just to try to get tears from you. It's so you understand the heart of the main character, Peter Quill (a.k.a. Star-Lord), before we catch up with him 26 years later.

Peter is taken from Earth immediately after this scene and we spend the rest of the movie in space. Normally in a movie like this we get a protagonist, or someone the protagonist knows, who doesn't understand the universe to serve as the viewer, like Kevin Bacon in Footloose. That way there's a reason to stop and tell everyone what's going on and how things work. Guardians doesn't feel the need for this. Peter's been in space for 26 years now and is familiar with how things are. No one's holding the audience's hand through any of this. But the movie feels that the audience will be smart enough to catch on to things as we go along. There are a few bits of exposition here and there that do let us know who some people are, where we are, what's happening. But they're never done in a way that's talking down to the audience.

What's great about not wasting time with an exposition character is that we can spend more time getting to know the characters that matter. We get to see early on who these characters are and what's unique about them. Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper), and Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) are all incredibly well-developed. While Drax (Dave Bautista) and Gamora (Zoe Saldana) aren't as fleshed out as the rest of the crew, but they're far from one dimensional. It's rare to see a movie with five leads where all are feel equally unique and interesting. While The Avengers had the luxury of having a movie for each character before hand to introduce us and get familiar with the several different leads, Guardians does it all in 2 hours.

All the actors are great. Bradley Cooper's Rocket is definitely a stand-out performance despite being entirely CGI. Maybe I'm a little biased as Rocket's been one of my favorite Marvel Characters since I've read the comics. But even separated from the comics and going on just the movies, Rocket is still my favorite character in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Not only does he get Rocket's snarky sense of humor, but really brings out Rocket's heart. Chris Pratt as Star-Lord is kind of like if his character from Parks and Recs was a badass. Pratt is flawless. Vin Diesel as Groot only has 3* lines, along with some grunts, but does a lot with it. Much like his voice work for The Iron Giant, Diesel knows how to do a lot with very little. You could say he's better when he does less. But when he does less, he's better than almost anyone else. There's something special about Dave Bautista's Drax. He's so deadpan and literal, but it works so well. There's a lot of gut-busting laughs because of the dead-serious delivery from Bautista. If there's one thing I love about Gamora by Saldana is that it's finally a female character that's a badass and NOT a love interest to anyone. Yeah, the trailer did make some teases at a Star-Lord/Gamora love thing going on, but no. She doesn't need it.

Michael Rooker (Merle in Walking Dead, Slither) as Yondu is a surprise. He's not one of the Guardians (In the original comics he was, but this is a long discussion which I'm not going to get into here) but he steals every scene he's in. He's responsible for taking Peter from Earth and sort of raised him. He's not quite a villain, not a hero, he's just another badass with goals that interject with some of the main characters. And he also gets a nice moment near the end of the film that rivals Quicksilver's in Days of Future Past.

One thing you could say is kind of lacking is development with the villains. Lee Pace does a great job with Ronan the Accuser. Ronan is terrifying and it's made clear early on that he is here to cause havok and you should be afraid. While he is a force to fear, he doesn't really get fleshed out a whole lot. You could compare him to a Islamic Extremist since his goal is to "clense" those who don't believe in the Kree Gods and avenge the death of his father and grandfather who died in old wars. Ronan is a tad disappointing as a villain given the wide variety of villains already existing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But the movie isn't really about him. It's about the Guardians. And if we're going to spend so much time with the Guardians, time with the villain is sacrificed. If I had to weigh the two, I'm wholeheartedly for spending more time with the Guardians.

To make it as Marvel movie, or a summer movie in general, you need to have some flair. Guardians definitely delivers the goods. Where most movies specialize in one type of crazy spectacle or set pieces, whether it be hand-to-hand fights, chases, space/air battles, Guardians has a bit of everything. All of these sequences are beautifully shot, some sequences are filmed in IMax which look astounding, and well choreographed. There's never any moment where shots were too close to where you couldn't see clearly what was going on. But I do feel there were a lack of some wide shots to give us a better scope of how big some of these scenes were. This could be from Gunn's lack of experience with these large-budget action movies. But I'll take the lack of wide shots as long as it comes with a lack of excessive shaky cam and quick cuts.

I saw this in both IMax and regular format theatres. If it weren't for the 3D, I would highly suggest seeing this in IMax. The 3D isn't bad, but I don't feel it really adds much to the film. One problem I do have with filming in IMax is when you don't watch it in IMax, the cropping for those scenes can make things feel a bit more cramped than they should be. And having seen both version, there were times I noticed some shots were missing a bit of space. It doesn't take away too much from the overall experience. It's just a minor detail that I, and some other people might, notice.

Just make sure the theatre you decide to go to has a good sound system. The music is incredible. The score is serviceable and does a great job with the necessary sequences. But what really glues the movie together is the soundtrack. While soundtracks are usually just a collection of songs that the director feels will help this scene or that scene, the reason why these songs appear when the do is kind of a big part of the movie. When Peter leaves Earth as a boy, he had a Sony Walkman on him. This walkman with his "Awesome Mix Vol. 1" is one of the few connections to home he has. And all the music for the movie is from that mix tape. As we explore this galaxy into these alien worlds, the music keeps us grounded with something relatable. There's also character moments that tie into the music being played, and one or two essential plot points come from these songs. The songs also enhance both the serious and cheesy tones of the movie.

Guardians of the Galaxy just works so well. It's such a tightly wound script with nearly flawless direction. There just aren't enough movies like this anymore. Aside from being my favorite Marvel movie, it's going up there with one of my favorite Sci-Fi/Fantasy movies along with Star Wars, Alien, Blade Runner, and Galaxy Quest. Yes, Galaxy Quest! It plays it serious enough where the emotional notes hit you hard, but cheesy enough to know when to have fun. I was fully invested with the character the entire film, and I had one of the most entertaining times I've had in a theatre in years. I'd say the one criticism I have is the third act sort of becomes your typical Marvel, "Stop the badguy from doing the bad thing." But the first two acts are so unique and original that this is completely forgiven. It still doesn't take away from sheer entertainment value of the movie. Even if you're not a Marvel fan, go see this movie.

HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION

Little sub-note. I purposely left out connections to the source material because I don't think it should matter. Yes, movies take liberties with the source material, and Guardians is not exception. But as long as a movie captures the heart or essence of what makes the source great, then go ahead and make whatever changes you feel like will make for a better movie. So stop being a canon-queen and just enjoy the damn movie.

Hercules?

One thing Hollywood has never gotten right about the Greek myth of Zeus's son is the name. Hercules is the Roman name for the Greek myth while Heracles is the Greek name. Yes every iteration of the character uses the Roman name with Greek everything else. Small nitpick, and it'll probably never be fixed. So let's move on.

Of all Hercules movies, the Disney version is widely known for being one of the lease accurate depictions of the legend. Leave it to Brett Ratner to one-up someone in doing it wrong. Remember, this is the guy who nearly single-handedly destroyed the X-Men franchise. THE X-MEN!!!! *deep breath* Woosah. Woosah...

Anyway.

Hercules, starring Dwayne Johnson, is the least faithful to the legend of all tellings that I've seen or heard of. At first, I didn't have a problem with this. It tried to approach the story in a realistic fashion. As we know, the legends of Greek mythologies are a bit exaggerated from what really happened. So this film is showing what could have happened with a real man named Hercules who inspired the legends.

But wait a minute, didn't the trailers show Hercules going all out and killing these legendary creatures like the Hydra? Yes, yes it did. And you do get to see that... in the first 7 minutes of the movie. These tasks that Hercules is known for, his labours, which included slaying the Hydra, slaying the Nemean Lion, killing the Erymanthian Boar, are all done in montage with a voice over. Then the voice over is revealed to be one of Hercules's partners, who I forget his name and don't really care to look up. He tells these tales of Hercules's labours to bring fear to the enemy and inspire allies. So, basically, they're all lies.

Now, I'm not one to judge a movie for not delivering on what I expect. Nor am I really going to hold a movie to what the trailer promised. For those that don't know, trailers are typically made by people who aren't involved with the production of the film. They're just paid to make something that will get people to buy tickets. Sometimes a trailer will lie and what actually is presented is far better. A good example is The Grey. Advertised as Taken with wolves while it was actually a survival-horror/philosophical/existential thriller. Some were disappointed; I was enamored.

At first I was interested. I like to think of myself as somewhat of a skeptic, so I like stories that play with "what is known may be false" angle. I'm enjoying how Hercules and his companions, who are just a band of mercenaries, use their friend's gift of story-telling to their advantage to both obtain jobs and frighten those they oppose.

On paper this sounds kind of fun. Unfortunately, as shown with X-Men The Last SttttaaaaaaAAAAHHHH--- Woosah... Brett Ratner somehow finds a way to suck the joy out of it. You find that without his labours, Hercules is an incredibly boring character. And other than Ian McShane, the characters surrounding him are just as boring. The dog-like mad man. The best-friend from war. The Woman. The younger relative who can't fight and he doesn't want to be harmed. Then you throw all these characters in a tired "train my men so we can fight a war" story with your typical twists and turns. If you can't see where this movie is heading after 20 minutes, you probably haven't seen many movies.

I will admit, there are some fun moments in this film. There's 2 big battle sequences that, for the most part, are well-done for a PG-13 movie. Dirt and mud serve as a substitute for blood. It's not quite the same, but it's still something to see small particles fly off a person when they're hit. Even if the enemies are rejects from 300, they have some moments where they seem threatening. There's also a few details through the first two acts that show how Hercules and his friends keep their legend alive. A good example is when Hercules takes an arrow tip in his fist and punches a guy in the face with it. No one except his companions saw the arrow tip, so to everyone else it appears that Hercules killed a man with a single blow. There are a few clever moments that this for the first hour.

Unfortunately, everything that gets built up from the first two acts of Hercules just being a normal man and a group who uses the power of perception and exaggeration to make it seem as if he were "More than just a man." The movie takes a hard left turn and has him do things that completely break all the rules set up in the first two acts. All of a sudden, a man of just superior human strength becomes a man of god-like strength. Why? Because the plot needed him to escape an impossible situation. Why was he there? Because the plot needed him to do something stupid to get there. Then the last 20 minutes just go against everything set up in the first hour and change for this big battle between Hercules and his friends and an army culminating and an outlandish final moment. Yes, the previous parts of the movie were boring. But you can't just break your own rules for no reason. Fully commit to the story you want to tell, or at least give the possibility throughout the entire film that things could be more than what's let on.

If I had to tell the story of Hercules in a "realistic" manner that played with the notion that the legend is an exaggeration, I would show how the story came to be. I wouldn't just have someone be telling the story to tell you that it's an exaggeration. I would show you what really happened along side with the storyteller's exaggerations. That could be a cool movie. But, as it stands, Hercules is just another typical action movie.

NOT RECOMMENDED