Change Your Image
alexgarcia732805
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againThere are some TV shows on the list as well.
Reviews
The Transporter Refueled (2015)
The 'Transporter' Series didn't need to be rebooted. But if you like most action movies then give it a try.
The 'Transporter' series never was a huge success to begin with, and the last installment was only a few years ago. But EuropaCorp and Relativity Media couldn't be bothered to give Statham $11 million dollars to return to the role. So REBOOT!
1) Keep it PG-13 for it to be accessible to teens. 2) Put 'From the producers of the Taken trilogy' in the ads for it to have some credibility. 3) Put some half-naked chicks for the audience to appreciate!
'Refueled' isn't creative, original, or particularly clever. The story isn't special, the acting adequate, and the action decent but not breathtaking (enough to have something interesting for the trailers). But 'Refueled' is filled with action, so if you forget about logic and just watch it as 'action-porn' than it's all right. At least it doesn't take itself too seriously.
I'm a teenager, and apparently people my age eat this stuff right up. But it wasn't very engaging. I've seen too many by-the-numbers action movies, and seeing one more didn't help my opinion of Hollywood. I don't mean to be overly critical or cynical, but how hard can it be to try something else than what's worked before? (But I guess you could say that if it ain't broken, don't fix it.)
I didn't have very high expectations for this movie, so I'm not surprised by how I feel about it. If you like action movies, then watch 'Refueled'. It's not complete trash. (More like something recyclable.) It works as mindless popcorn-entertainment. But if you just want something to watch on the weekend, see what else is in theaters. (Maybe some blockbuster sequel?)
This movie reminds me of other reboots, like 'Fantastic Four' and 'Hitman: Agent 47'. And of unnecessary/underwhelming sequels like 'Taken 3'.
I have reviewed 43 movies (on Metacritic and IMDb), some recent ones, including: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, Minions (Despicable Me spin- off), Avengers: Age of Ultron, Fast and Furious 7, The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3, and more. I also review TV shows.
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)
Is the hype worth it?--Smarter than average for this genre. An enjoyable and well made film.
I had almost accepted the fact that it was too much to ask for a smart, funny, and action-packed movie these days. (I've been a bit disappointed with some recent blockbusters this year, which I enjoyed but know could've been better.) But I was thoroughly happy to be proved wrong when I saw Mission: Impossible--Rogue Nation.
**Tom Cruise gives his 100% as IMF agent Ethan Hunt--fully embracing the role and doing all the stunts. **Benji (Simon Pegg) is funny (didn't expect him to be playing CoD at work). He's juxtaposed well with the slightly cynical and weary Hunt, as he's more naive and not battle-hardened. **Rebecca Ferguson is convincing in her role--she's not frail or weak, she's athletic and actually sort of muscular. She's not overly sexualized, made a love interest, or a victim.
**We get an interesting character in Alec Baldwin's Alan Hunley, director of the CIA--who doesn't trust the IMF. Director Hunley has gravitas, and he has screen presence. You wonder whether or not he's helping the Syndicate. **The villain's motivation could've been better, and I can't even remember his name. **William Brandt (Jeremy Renner) and Luther (Ving Rhames) both needed more screen time. They were basically reduced to supporting characters. (If you ask me, that's unfair because Luther has been with the series since the beginning.)
The movie kicks off with a big stunt (apparently done by Cruise himself). Once the action starts, it doesn't let up. Chasing after a MacGuffin and the Syndicate leads Cruise from one location to another, with various members of his team showing up to assist along the way, and enemies on his trail.
If you want to be judgmental, nothing in 'Mission Impossible 5' is over-the-top or mindblowing (in terms of the script and action sequences), but the movie is better than most other films in both of those departments. The script and action scenes are smart, relying more on suspense than eye-candy. Director Christopher McQuarrie succeeds where most have struggled, in terms of balancing a decent script, action, comedy, and characters. The cinematography and editing is well done (as showcased in the Vienna opera scene).
I definitely wouldn't say that 'Rogue Nation' was too predictable or a bore. I really enjoyed myself when I watched the movie. Action, suspense, sharp dialogue (when I say 'sharp', I mean sharper than Ant-Man or Taken 3), and humor make the film a treat. The cast helps give the film a contagious and exhilarating energy. I honestly was surprised by some of the film's twists. (But it should be noted that I'm new to the franchise.)
I think "Rogue Nation" deserves a 10, and not because it's perfect. The villain wasn't as memorable or menacing as he could've been, some characters needed more screen time, and the film was a bit fast- paced in some parts. Nevertheless, it's the closest a 2015 action film has been to a 10 (at least for me). Director Christopher McQuarrie manages to make old tropes feel fun again, and balance a lot of components to make a great, enjoyable film.
I have reviewed 44 movies (on Metacritic and IMDb), some recent ones, including: Fantastic Four (2015), Ant-Man, Minions (Despicable Me spin-off), Avengers: Age of Ultron, Fast and Furious 7, The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3, and more. I also review TV shows.
Ant-Man (2015)
7---A flawed but fun superhero movie.
"Ant-Man" is a good time. Of course, it could've been better, but the humor, 'heist' aspect of the movie, and miniature-sized action scenes make it fun enough.
**Michael Douglas managed to capture some of Hank's inner turmoil with what he was given. His anger, cynicism, and some tragic backstory (told to Scott and the audience by his daughter Hope) make Hank a compelling enough character. **Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is perhaps the most relatable of the cast. He's a normal, ordinary guy who works struggles with jobs (such as one at Baskin-Robbins). Paul Rudd brings a sort of average guy-charisma to the role, and you root for him and his redemption.
**Evangeline Lilly doesn't have much to work with as Hank's daughter Hope van Dyne. Her character could've used more development, but at least her dialogue with Scott and Pym is sometimes amusing. ** Ant- Man unfortunately continues the MCU movie trend of forgettable villains, as Corey Stoll plays Darren Cross (AKA cliché villain Yellowjacket). A businessman who wants to utilize revolutionary technology for evil purposes? This is not a new concept, and one already played out in "Iron-Man". (Remember Obadiah Stane?) **Michael Pena brings the laughs as Luis (Scott's old cell-mate in prison who he lives with once he gets out).
The movie feels lively and cheery throughout, and I think this is one of the main reasons why it works. The "heist" thing going on gives the movie a nice pace. The humor is enjoyable (although some may argue that some of the jokes are crude and only for 'cheap' laughs). At least the one-liners don't feel forced or unwarranted; the jokes and quips are more appropriately timed/placed than in Avengers: Age of Ultron.
The movie uses cliché tropes and story lines (strained family relationships, former criminal goes on quest for redemption, former protégé turns against mentor, etc). There is nothing surprising or ground-breaking about the story, and the scale of the finale might surprise some. However, I guess it's a good thing the world isn't in peril AGAIN in a Marvel movie, cause that has started getting old. (BTW, it has the best use of Thomas the Tank Engine ever!)
Ultimately, "Ant-Man" is your basic superhero movie, but a fun time. If you like blockbusters and superhero films, then watch it. But if you're more picky about your entertainment, then pass.
I have reviewed 43 movies (on Metacritic and IMDb), some recent ones, including: Minions (Despicable Me spin-off), Avengers: Age of Ultron, Fast and Furious 7, The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3, and more. I also review TV shows.
***Minor SPOILERS*** The movie shows the "quantum realm", a super- tiny place from which there is almost no return. It's a pretty interesting idea. Hopefully it's explored more. (Also, I get that Darren Cross was never meant to be a big villain, but did he have to get killed off, never to be brought up again?)
Notes: *The beginning of the film, showing a young Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and a younger SHIELD, is pretty interesting. The younger Hank's appearance is made possible using CGI to de-age actor Michael Douglas, and I would say it turned out pretty well. *A good idea for a new Marvel One-Shot might be to have one about Hank Pym and his early adventures as Ant-man. *Expect to see Hope van Dyne return in the MCU. She'll probably take on the mantle of the Wasp, from her mother. *R.I.P Anthony! That ant lived a good life :P
Minions (2015)
7--Good for the Kids, Not so Much for the Adults
It's an animated spin-off film starring creatures that talk gibberish. Obviously you shouldn't be asking for much with a movie like that. But that shouldn't be an excuse for this film to be average. I really liked the first Despicable Me movie, and the second one was OK to me. (In my opinion, it didn't live up to it's predecessor). With "Minions", I was cautiously optimistic.
This movie made me think of another animated spin-off that came out a while ago, "Penguins of Madagascar". They both suffer from similar issues. Both films feature the antics of (previously-supporting) cast members who mostly provided comic relief. While the minions just mess around and spout nonsense, there still was opportunity to maybe tell a story with them. Unfortunately, the filmmakers failed to do this as best as they could have.
The Nelson family were an amusing bunch of characters, but I think their roles should've been expanded. As they're the first humans Kevin, Stuart, and Bob meet, they should've had more importance and influence on them. The minions are so impressionable, yet the Nelson's don't leave any lasting influence or mark? Scarlet Overkill (Sandra Bullock) and her husband Herb are both fun characters, but neither of them are ever fully developed or made unique in any way. The minions themselves are what you'd expect.
The plot of the movie revolves around villains attempting to steal the Queen's crown. Herb's gadgets make this relatively easy, but if he had them all along, why didn't Scarlet use them to steal the crown earlier? She's very capable, but for some reason lets the minions do the work for her. Why?
I think one of the main reasons this movie exists is to sell merchandise--particularly toys. "Minions" is ultimately a dumb, but harmless kid film. It doesn't live up to the first two Despicable Me movies. It's definitely not as good as Inside Out, which came out a few weeks ago. But if you want to watch it, I recommend renting it or seeing it on Netflix.
I have reviewed 40 movies (on Metacritic and IMDb), some recent ones, including: Inside Out, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Fast and Furious 7, The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3, and more. I also review TV shows.
Notes: The minions' submissive nature and tendency to have a villainous master was actually a pretty interesting concept IMO. It had never occurred to me that the minions had actively sought out masters; in 'Despicable Me' they are all just shown to be employed by Gru and their origins are never really explained.
Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
Impromptu Humor, Too Much Thick & Heavy Action, and Unsatisfying Characters New and Old
Being the sequel to the biggest superhero movie of all time is not an easy thing to be. Meeting the expectations and demands of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, of dedicated fans, and the general movie- going public is no easy task.
In an ambitious effort to top the previous Avengers movie, Joss Whedon packed around 5 different big-budget action sequences in Age of Ultron. The blockbuster action felt epic in the trailers and promos, but somehow lackluster in the actual movie (probably because we are bombarded with too much of it). Watching this superhero extravaganza, I felt that the filming style was gimmicky (camera turning around 360 to show way too many things going on at once).
Even with its 2 and a half hour run time, AoU has a rushed pace, and not enough time is given to the characters and audience to dwell on what is going on. There's so much ground to cover in this sequel that the movie struggles to find room. The movie glosses over the Scarlet Witch-induced hallucinations that the Avengers suffer, the "Infinity Well" (where Thor learns of setup for Phase 3 and the Infinity War), and the fact that SHIElD is back, but with no mention of the rival factions within it (shown on Agents Of SHIELD).
Everything and nothing is at stake in AoU. After all, it's obvious going into the theater that only one or two of our heroes will die-- because most of the Avengers have more movies that they're contracted to star in. Plus, Disney benefits far too much because of the MCU to kill off a money-making character. Knowing this, what is the point of making movies where the entire planet is in danger, yet not a single civilian gets killed on-screen and almost none of the Avengers are ever in real jeopardy? The comedic timing of the film is also off, as too many jokes and quips are made at inappropriate times, and this contributes to a lack of tension in the movie.
None of the acting is noteworthy or remarkable, but the conflict of ideologies between Tony and Cap was interesting to me and a natural progression of their characters (also setting up the two for Captain America 3: Civil War). I appreciated the camaraderie that the Avengers had in the Avengers Tower party scene, as it humanizes Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I personally didn't like the romantic relationship between Bruce and Natasha--none of the previous films, including this one, set them up as a couple--and yet they're talking about abandoning the team and running away together after defeating Ultron?
Bruce's inner demons are starting to feel tedious to watch, especially in the way it was handled. ***SPOILER ALERT*** He very unceremoniously leaves the team in a quinjet. And Natasha has now flirted (or at least had moments of romantic playfulness) with Tony, Cap, Hawkeye, and the Hulk. That seems kind of insulting to her character. (However, I do like that AoU delved into Black Widow's dark past.) Hawkeye gets some love, but I still don't think it was enough. (I don't even see why Black Widow and Hawkeye are main characters in the MCU, they're better off as major supporting characters. After all, they're fighting an army of robots and Hawkeye himself says that all he has is a bow and arrow!)
***SPOILER ALERT*** Of all the characters to kill off, the end of a recently introduced and supporting character is somewhat disappointing--especially how it was handled. We barely got time to be introduced to Quicksilver, but he is killed anyway. His final words are "Bet you didn't see that coming", but many had already predicted his death. (Was Quicksilver killed simply for shock effect, or because his character was too weak to compete against the one from X: Men DOFP?) The Vision, Quicksilver, and Scarlet Witch are all undeveloped (Scarlet Witch feels way too much like Carrie; from the horror movie).
Ultron is "not as scary as the Winter Soldier, or as interesting and entertaining as Loki, or as ominous as hyper-intelligent Ava from Ex Machina." He doesn't do anything actually useful with all of the power he supposedly has (no hacking, no using nukes?). AoU's Ultron is a far cry from the comics, where he's apparently a "hyper- intelligent and adaptable being". The father son relationship between Stark and Ultron that could have been, isn't. "We aren't given any time for him and Stark to form a relationship that could later turn to hatred. There is never that process that allows us to accept Ultron first as Stark's 'child' and then as his antagonist." Considering the love-hate relationship between Hank Pym and Ultron is a key part of his character in the comics (which I haven't read but know enough about), AoU is a letdown in that regard. (And the way he is defeated is pretty lame.)
Age of Ultron could've have definitely been a much better movie. Instead of leaving people wanting more, Joss Whedon has left most wanting less. The action gets too thick and makes the movie feel bloated; too many one-liners are said at impromptu times. Cap and Iron Man are the most interesting characters, but the rest fall flat. Whedon "simply has too many balls to keep in the air for one movie—even a two-and-a-half-hour one." In interviews, Whedon has said that he feels burned out by his responsibilities in the MCU. Therefore, him leaving the franchise is probably the best for all of us.
I have reviewed 40 movies (some on Metacritic and/or IMDb) including the 2014 and 2015 films: Fast & Furious 7, The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3 and more. I also review other TV shows, such as: Marvel's Daredevil, Agent Carter, Empire (2015), The Flash, Arrow (Season 3), Gotham, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD (Season 1 and 2), and more.
Fast & Furious 7 (2015)
Delivers on what you're promised; you get what you expect. (But are we expecting too little?)
After Fast & Furious 6, I thought that we really didn't need another F&F movie. Add the fact that the plot of Furious 7 is just Owen Shaw's brother (Deckard Shaw) seeking revenge, and Furious 7 seemed like a somewhat unwarranted movie. Not because I was tired of F&F movies, but because I thought there was no reason (at least story wise) to keep making them. (Of course, there was still the mystery of who killed Han, but that's beside the point.) Nevertheless, I was enticed by the trailers and TV spots for F7. The promise of more impossible car stunts and dumb, crazy action lured me in.
The plot of F7 is as realistic as you can imagine, with lots of vehicular mayhem in Abu Dubai (that somehow doesn't get Dom & Co. in trouble?) and a dues ex machina computer program/MacGuffin that can track anyone, anywhere in a matter of seconds (called "God's Eye"). But these illogical things are typical of the Fast & Furious movies, and at this point I don't expect anything different. Due to this though, I've heard people negatively compare the F&F franchise to the Transformers franchise. However, IMO the Transformers movies have become heartless, boring, cash grabs. On the other hand, the F&F franchise at least has MOMENTS of comedy, excitement, and true heart. The F&F stars are also likable, and relatable. After seeing these characters together for 7 movies, they're obviously more acquainted with each other than the average Hollywood movie cast. They have authentic chemistry.
If anything, Furious 7 is a Michael Bay-esque movie done RIGHT. While many of the events in F7 are really ludicrous, the overall themes of the movie & franchise (family, loyalty, vengeance) help keep Furious 7 from feeling like bloated with CGI and one- liners. Once again, the latest F&F film has been able to walk the line between just-for- fun, over-the-top popcorn flick and lazy, unimaginative Hollywood sequel. (Though I'm not sure that that will happen again.)
I definitely had a fun and enjoyable cinematic experience when I was watching Furious 7. The action sequences were as ambitious and over-the-top as always. F&F 7 is determined to top all previous films, and it succeeds--but is that such a good thing? (Nevertheless, films are a type of escapism from our unfortunately too-realistic lives. So don't feel bad about giving Furious 7 a large amount of suspension of disbelief.) However, I think that this latest movie asked for too MUCH suspension of disbelief. How many more car crashes and shootouts can Dominic Toretto & Co. survive? Are you telling me that Dom stood his own against Deckard Shaw, when an entire Special Ops team couldn't? And why didn't the US government intervene at all when a weaponized DRONE was in Los Angeles, and when Dominic was driving a super-car through skyscrapers?
I think it's fair to question the future of this franchise. Furious 7 actually managed to top Furious 6, but how will future films KEEP topping what has been done before? F&F 8 won't be the same without Paul Walker (R.I.P). Brian O'Connor was one of the main characters in the franchise, but Paul Walker has passed on. Will Dominic Toretto, Letty, Roman, Tej, and Hobbs be able to sustain this franchise by themselves?
Also, some of the F&F family are still struggling to have meaningful dialogue, like Tyrese Gibson as Roman and 'Ludacris' Bridges as Tej. They both have too many one- liners. Besides that, some actors were little more than cameos to appeal to all demographics--like Tony Jaa (as the martial arts expert that Brian fights), Djimon Hounsou (as the leader of a band of militant mercenaries), Ronda Rousey, and Iggy Azalea. (By the way, also think we should've gotten to know Ramsey a bit better.)
As a whole though, forgiving some of F7's flaws, Furious 7 is an entertaining movie. It delivers on it's promise of big budget spectacle, and it also provides a send-off to Paul Walker. (To be honest, I did get slightly emotional during that final scene.)
I have reviewed 40 movies (all on Metacritic and and some on IMDb) including the 2014 and 2015 films: The Divergent Series: Insurgent, Taken 3, The Interview, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Dracula Untold, The Maze Runner, Nightcrawler, The Equalizer, The Expendables 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Giver, Sharknado 2, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Edge of Tomorrow, X-Men Days of Future Past, Godzilla, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, The Lego Movie, Divergent, Transcendence, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, and more.
I also review other TV shows, such as: Agent Carter, Empire (2015), The Flash, Arrow (Season 3), Gotham, The Last Ship, Sleepy Hollow, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD (Season 1 and 2), The 100, I Wanna Marry Harry, Crisis, Gang Related, and more. I also have reviewed the mobile Android games Minecraft: Pocket Edition, Clash of Clans, and Five Night's at Freddy's
Insurgent (2015)
Half-Assed Acting+Rushed Pace+Clichés=Insurgent
I read all the Divergent books (including "Four") and I watched the Divergent movie. Now, some say that Insurgent is a better movie than Divergent. But even if it was, that's not much of an accomplishment. In Divergent, at least we got sufficient time to be introduced to and spend time with the characters. Also, the action sequences in the first film were kind of worthwhile. But this sequel is just too quick- paced and too desperate to move from one scene to another. I feel like everyone involved with "Insurgent" simply wanted to get it over with, so they could get cash in on the two-parter conclusion (Allegiant). Insurgent simply spends too much time advancing plot instead of spending meaningful time with the characters.
Insurgent has some impressive simulation scenes. While some simulations in the movie weren't in the book, I didn't really care that much because the sims were interesting. We see more of this universe's dystopian Chicago, however it feels like a retread of what we've seen before. Not all the casting decisions in this movie were bad. (But Four's mother looking younger than him? Really?)
However, the half-assed acting (from a majority of the actors, but not all), the rushed pace, the lack of character development and a general sense of unoriginality really bring the film down. With the first movie, audiences were somewhat obligated to give the new Divergent franchise a chance--but I feel like because of Insurgent that was one chance too many. If you liked Divergent, then by all means, watch "Insurgent". You'll probably like this movie.
*Everyone says that Shailene Woodley "carried" this movie. But I personally think she simply wasn't as bad as everyone else. Her performance in the 1st film was better. *While Theo James might be a convincing Four, that doesn't mean he's a relatable or very interesting Four. (Or should I say...Tobias Eaton!) *I think Caleb (Ansel Elgort) should be killed off, because he seems completely expendable. Ansel Elgort looks REALLY bored and emotionless throughout the entire film; he has a blank, vacant facial expression in his scenes, in promotional photos, etc. He isn't needed enough to warrant him being in this franchise, and is only there because Tris needs him to be--the plot doesn't really need him and neither does the audience. But maybe money and/or contractual obligations are the real reasons. *Jai Courtney is very capable in his villainous role, he makes Eric a captivating character. Nevertheless, he had more potential. *Kate Winslet is a lot less likable in Insurgent than in Divergent. All Jeanine does is stand around stoic-faced and say a few menacing lines. *Peter (Miles Teller) has too many sardonic one- liners, and could've been more of a funny anti-hero than he was.
The relationship between Tris and Four is really rushed. It is never given enough development (though at least their romance isn't Insurgent's primary focus).
***Minor SPOILERS***While I can see why there might be some attraction between the two, I think them having sex was unwarranted. How long have they known each other--a month? Apparently, Veronica Roth and the people behind Insurgent think that all teenagers are h0rny and sexually deprived. (By the way, I'm a teenager too, so I'm not unjustly generalizing an entire age group.) ***End of Minor Spoilers***
Insurgent is anticlimactic. It's not always--but it is too often-- dull & boring. I am probably being too negative about Insurgent, but after seeing so many mediocre YA novel adaptations, I'm not very accepting of them anymore. After two relatively disappointing films, I'm not sure the next two Divergent installments (Allegiant, Part 1 and 2) will be any better. Out of all the franchises I have seen split their finales into multiple films (Fast & Furious, Twilight, Harry Potter, THG, The Avengers: Infinity War) Divergent is the least deserving. With such little emphasis put on characters (something of a problem with "The Hunger Games" series, but to a lesser extent), I really doubt that the Allegiant book adaptation will be bearable. Some fans don't even like the Allegiant book very much, so I think that the director and producers of Allegiant will need a lot of luck if they're to turn this franchise around.
Agent Carter (2015)
A Witty Show with a Strong Female Protagonist. But is She Too Strong That it Makes Her Unrelatable?
Agent Carter is a witty and kick-ass espionage/period show. It has very high production values, and the costume/set department should be proud of their work. The show is very stylish and pleasant because of the attire the actors wear & the set pieces that their characters inhabit. Peggy Carter is a strong role model, and it's nice to see a capable woman in the MCU (and we may get another, a superheroine when "Captain Marvel" releases).
The men of "Agent Carter" were unbelievably sexist and ignorant in the first 2 or 3 episodes, and at times it made you wonder if all the men were dumbed-down idiots simply for Carter to seem much more capable in comparison. However, I think the episodes "The Blitzkrieg Button" and "The Iron Ceiling" are big examples of the show's improvement in that regard. Peggy's boss (Chief Dooley) and co- workers (Jack Thompson and Daniel Sousa) all get some memorable dialogue on-screen and some character-driven moments.
To be honest, I think that Hayley Atwell still needs more emotional expression to her character, as Peggy mostly has the same facial expression (with slight variations) all the time. Also, I think the following may be true to a certain extent--Peggy's character growth is limited by the fact that she's obligated to set a standard for women in a male-dominated genre, industry, and Cinematic Universe. Because of Carter constantly having to prove herself, Peggy's only real struggles are against rampant sexism. Peg doesn't really have any big weaknesses or character flaws, which makes her feel a bit unrelatable at times. "The closest she comes to being flawed is crying over pictures of Steve Rogers and going through the five thousandth iteration of the 'It's dangerous to get too close to me,' superhero story arc."
Nevertheless, Hayley Atwell convincingly plays Agent Carter at her best--very confident, capable, and strong. James D'Arcy is a charming character, with his accent and his mannerisms. It is funny to see him begrudgingly tag along with Peg on various dangerous exploits. Howard Stark (played by Dominic Cooper) is an amiable and boisterous playboy, just like his son Tony Stark.The other cast members are fun as well.
I think some Marvel fans will find it interesting to see more lore and MCU characters from the past (during the 1940's, to be specific). Agent Carter has a very good opportunity to explore certain things in the the MCU's history, which I feel the show has yet to fully capitalize on. Peggy is one of the most influential women in the MCU--appearing in Captain America 1 & 2, Agents of SHIELD, a Marvel One-Shot, and The Avengers 2. She also has ties to Hank Pym (the first Ant-Man) in the MCU. Yet the "Agent Carter" show has her struggling to gain respect from her peers. I feel that the show would've been better off showing Peggy at multiple points in her life (creating SHIELD with Howard Stark, battling HYDRA, helping Hank Pym, etc). However, "The Iron Ceiling" episode shows the origins of the Black Widow program & the Red Room--a Soviet training facility that coerces abducted girls to become assassins. That was a pretty fascinating aspect of the 5th episode, and I think it's an example of what the show could be like in the future.
Overall, Marvel's Agent Carter is enjoyable show, with a strong (maybe too strong) female protagonist. The 1940's atmosphere is an interesting one to explore, especially when it's set in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I hope that the series is renewed for a Season 2, because there is so much untapped Marvel mythology that can be explored.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)
Focus on Character-Driven Story lines and Political Subtext Off-Putting For Some? Conflict Between Characters Needed More Emphasis.
I personally was very put off by the idea that Mockingjay would be split into 2 parts. (Now it seems every movie has/will do that-- Breaking Dawn, Deathly Hallows, Avengers: Infinity War, Allegiant, etc.) I read many reviews online, and they almost convinced me (without even watching the movie) that THG: Mockingjay--Part 1 was a pointless, boring cash-grab; a set-up movie filled with exposition and "filler"; a holdover for "THG Mockingjay--Part 2". But if I have learned anything from watching so many recent films, it is this: don't judge a film by its posters, trailer, or reviews without seeing the movie for yourself--some films may really surprise you and are better (or worse) than you expected.
I think some of the characters didn't get the screen time they deserved. But I truly only think that because you got to know the characters well in the books, and I think it's kind of hard to replicate that in the movies without some kind of internal monologue. If Mockingjay was a standalone film not based on a book, I'd probably have a very difficult time relating to the characters. However, I know them all well enough to not be that disappointed by a character's short screen time.
I can understand why some people who didn't read the books were disappointed with and failed to connect to Mockingjay--Part 1. But those who read the books should've been satisfied with the film. I think that because I read the books, I maybe could appreciate the movie better than some people (due to the fact that many of scenes in the movie might've seemed pointless, unnecessary, or boring to those who haven't read the books). I personally wasn't bored during the movie—because while nobody was fighting to the death, and there wasn't much action—there was still good performances from the cast and some nice "political subtext".
Because of the focus given on character-driven story lines and political allegories, I think that some viewers were distanced by the film's approach. I personally think that instead of adapting the book as well as they did, they should've created some battle scenes (possibly focusing on missions from each side of the war between the districts and the capitol). Maybe they could've shown some battles that rebel and Capitol soldiers fought, with people such as Beetee, Haymitch, Boggs, President Snow, etc. overseeing it all. "Mockingjay Part 1 is less popular than its predecessors because it's a deliberate move away from action towards a more cerebral, darker kind of war movie." Because the movie doesn't rely on action scenes, and it's still good (IMO), it's proof that THG films aren't dumb YA novel adaptations. They can do well without deadly competitions in arenas and "silly teenage romance".
The movie has a lot of things that probably turned off some people-- no Hunger Games, not much real action/fighting, less of an emphasis on the love-triangle romance, being split in two parts, etc. And being on top of "Fandango's list of most-anticipated films of 2014" probably contributed to this film's lukewarm critical reception. When people had such enthusiasm and high expectations for the movie and they were disappointed, they probably got angry. So, besides a lack of action sequences and some characters getting little screen time, I actually thought that the movie wasn't bad. This movie probably could've explored/developed certain aspects of the movie's environment/atmosphere better than it did, but I think it's still a bit better than the first HG film. It's still not nearly as good as Catching Fire though. Mockingjay-Part 1 "did not do a good enough job showcasing the conflict between the characters. The third book was very somber and full of distrust. The movie
didn't really capture all that you read, where previous movies they did." The second one can reach level of tension and excitement that this one never can.
Mockingjay-Part 2 will be released on November 20, 2015.
I have reviewed 38 other movies on IMDb and Metacritic, including the 2014 and 2015 films: Taken 3, The Interview, Exodus: Gods and Kings, Dracula Untold, The Maze Runner, The Expendables 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Giver, Sharknado 2, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Edge of Tomorrow, X- Men Days of Future Past, Godzilla, Blended, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Divergent, Transcendence, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, The Lego Movie, and more.
I review TV shows (on IMDb & Metacritic), such as: Empire, The Flash, Arrow (Season 3), Gotham, The Last Ship, Sleepy Hollow, Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, The 100, 24: Live Another Day, I Wanna Marry Harry, Crisis, Gang Related, and more. I also have reviewed the mobile Android games: Minecraft Pocket Edition, Clash of Clans, and Five Night's at Freddy's.
(P.S, the quotes are from other reviews online.)
The Giver (2014)
Underdeveloped and Dull. An Implausible and Dumb Utopian Society. Bad CGI. Camera Angles are Awkward. Amateur Acting.
The Giver reminds me of two other 2014 films, Transcendence and Divergent (both of which I also have reviewed on Metacritic). Why? The Giver is similar to Transcendence because both films took a while to make (of course The Giver was in the process of being made much longer by Jeff Bridges). Both also have good and respected actors---Transcendence has Rebecca Hall, Paul Bettany, Kate Mara, Cillian Murphy, and Morgan Freeman while The Giver has Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes, and Alexander Skarsgard. The Giver is also similar to Divergent because (I don't like to say this, but) both YA novels and their movie adaptations have implausible utopian futures and societies.
The world featured in The Giver honestly doesn't make much sense, if you simply base you opinion on the movie. Unlike other novel adaptations, I didn't read The Giver book. I actually made sure I didn't, so that I could have an unbiased opinion. A movie needs to stand on its own. If I need to read a book to understand it and like it, than exactly how good is the movie on its own? So, I just watched the movie. And the world/society that exists in The Giver doesn't really make much sense. Who created "the community" where Jonas lives? Why are the Giver and the Receiver the only ones who have knowledge of the past? Exactly how do they even get memories of the past in the first place? If the Elders created Jonas' community, then why don't they have memories of the past? It would be impractical for them to rely on the Giver and the Receiver to tell them advice, because they could lie/deceive/manipulate them. Why does their need to be a Receiver if they already have the Giver? How does the government work? Are the communities entirely self-reliant (because I doubt they are)? Later, I actually read the book and most of the questions above are still not answered. The book gives more answers for sure, but we still don't know much about the world of The Giver.
Some scenes in the film look and feel cheaply made, with not-very-good CGI and strange camera angles. The actor playing Jonas feels too amateur; his scenes feel awkward and forced at times. This doesn't only apply to Jonas, but almost all the actors in the film.
I feel like all the people who rated "The Giver" favorably watched a different movie. "One of the best films of the year"; "tremendous acting"; "amazing actors and awesome scenes"? I feel this praise is unwarranted. "Worst movie of the year"? Some of the criticism for the movie is unwarranted as well.
The movie changed a few things from the book, but I think most of these changes helped make the storytelling more fluid (if also a bit cliché). These changes were done to help the viewers experience, similar to The Maze Runner film. One example of these changes is Asher; lots of things about Asher are changed (he wasn't a pilot, he didn't help Jonas). Also, the romantic aspect of the movie (the relationship between Jonas and Fiona) isn't nearly as prominent of important. Most of the memories giving sequences are just plain montages, and more time should've been given to them and more different memories should've been shown.
Considering how long it took for The Giver too finally make it to the big screen, you would've thought the movie would be pretty good. But the movie feels underdeveloped and dull. Despite all The Giver has going for it, it's not that good. I do like the book by Lois Lowry much more though; I have a small paperback copy of it.
Score: 5.8 If you liked this review, please read my other ones on movies, TV shows, and videogames. I have reviewed media on IMDb and Metacritic, under the username AGarcia732.
Nightcrawler (2014)
Much Effort from Jake Gyllenhaal and Director Dan Gilroy. Gripping Throughout It's Runtime.
"Nightcrawler" is an intense and riveting thriller, with a neo-noir style and and some dark social commentary of today's news media. Death and destruction becomes headlines, "each police siren wail equals a possible windfall, and victims" are merely "dollars and cents" in the film "Nightcrawler".
Lou Bloom is a hard-working man, a perfectionist, a fast-learner with a can-do attitude and an uncompromising work ethic. He's quite eloquent, articulate, and knowledgeable. He sounds like a nice guy, right? However, some people just don't know when to stop--when things have gone too far, out of hand, or crossed a line. Lou Bloom is one of those people. From tampering with crime scenes, to pressuring a co-worker for sex, to blackmailing and sabotaging others, to withholding information from authorities, to manipulating events to his advantage, Lou is an example of an opportunist who never stops pushing. He "blurs the line between observer and participant". Lou pursues the American Dream like countless other US citizens/residents--but he's simply willing to do anything to get his payday.
The movie shows just how screwed up media can be. It's competitive and ugly, with people fighting over the most gruesome footage. Nina primarily represents the ugly objectives of a cutthroat industry. %%%% MILD SPOILERS %%%% When Nina discovers that a home invasion massacre was a drug deal gone wrong, she decides not to release that info (as it doesn't go with the fear-instilling message she's trying to tell). Nina also tells Lou to focus primarily on getting footage from wealthy, white neighborhoods, because that's what the people want.
Jake Gyllenhaal does an excellent performance as Lou. He's convincing as the socially awkward, demanding, and unsettling man. Jake shows effort, and he even lost weight for the role (which is evident with his gaunt cheekbones). Renne Russo is also great as Nina, a woman who also has little moral qualms with the faults of her work. Riz Ahmed's supporting character (Rick) could've had more of a backstory. I also happened to like Bill Paxton in his small role (as Joe, rival cameraman to Jake's character Lou). Dan Gilroy does a great job as director, especially considering Nightcrawler is his first movie.
Despite this praise, because Lou is presented as such a sociopath from the beginning, the movie has slightly less suspense toward the end than it could've had (in hindsight). However, the tragedy at the end is still unexpected to me.
I have reviewed 38 other movies on Metacritic and IMDb, including the 2014 and 2015 films: Taken 3, The Interview, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Dracula Untold, The Maze Runner, The Equalizer, The Expendables 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Guardians of the Galaxy, The Giver, Sharknado 2, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Edge of Tomorrow, X-Men Days of Future Past, Godzilla, Blended, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Divergent, Transcendence, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, The Lego Movie, and more.
I review TV shows, such as: Empire (2015), The Flash, Arrow (Season 3), Gotham, The Last Ship (Season 1), Sleepy Hollow (Season 1), Marvel's Agents of SHIELD (Season 1 and 2), The 100, I Wanna Marry Harry, Crisis, Gang Related, and more. I also have reviewed the mobile Android games: Minecraft Pocket Edition, Clash of Clans, and Five Night's at Freddy's.
The Maze Runner (2014)
Likable But Underdeveloped Characters; A Contrived Set-Up for a YA Dystopian Franchise
Another YA dystopian novel movie adaptation?!? I'm starting to wonder if the market will become oversaturated with these films (though I doubt it). If you're just looking for one nice movie to be entertained with, you might be disappointed with TMR because the movie ends with a cliffhanger and is the first in a quartet of books (and probably future movies). It has an interesting premise (Why are the Gladers in the Maze? Who put them there? Will they ever get out?), but to new moviegoers TMR might feel like simple franchise bait and will leave them with more questions than answers about the world of TMR. You might not get much closure.
The Gladers are likable characters, but they aren't developed much and are too similar to familiar character archetypes. Thomas is an OK character, to be honest Newt and Alby are more interesting than he was. This is probably due to Thomas having no memories, and most of his scenes are ones that set up the series mythology and ones where he's in fight and chase scenes. The rest of the Gladers don't do much or are there only to advance the plot of the movie (but they're likable). You don't focus on this much though as The Maze Runner is a very fast- paced book and movie. Thomas and the "Gladers" rush from one shocking event to the next dangerous chase, all while trying to find a way out of the Maze.
Even though TMR only has a $34 million dollar budget, the movie still looks visually nice. I loved to see the Grievers, the Maze, the Glade, and the Gladers brought to life from the book! I think they were cast very well: Thomas, Teresa, Alby, Minho, Gally; they all look like I imagined them. To the disappointment of some action, effects-heavy, CGI explosion fans there are no super-big set pieces in TMR, and the fighting is pretty primitive (with almost no guns or heavy hand-to- hand combat sequences). But there's still excitement with the chases from, and the fighting against the Grievers (bio- mechanical lizard/scorpion-like monsters). TBH the fight scenes could've been a bit more professional.
There are a few small things changed from book to movie, but most help the movie become a smoother cinematic tale (albeit slightly cliché) and more understandable to those who don't know all the info that comes with reading the books. However, others are quite unnecessary.
The movie ultimately spends too long setting up future installments than fleshing out the characters, but it still has enough things going on for you not to get too bored. It's adrenaline-fueled, suspenseful, and thrilling. I personally think the fight scenes could've been better choreographed and more exciting. Also, the characters really could've used more development. I think we should've got to known the Maze, Glade, and Gladers more because the movie is IMO too short.
PS, for those of you that don't know, a sequel to TMR (called The Maze Runner: Scorch Trials) is set be released on September 18, 2015 in the United States. Also, a second prequel book has been announced by James Dashner called "The Fever Code" (possibly to be released in 2016). Score for The Maze Runner: 7.4
%%SPOILER ALERT%% Does it really make sense that, with an unlimited budget and support of the world's governments, WCKD (or WICKED in the books) decided to make a maze of death in an attempt to find a cure for The Flare? If they wanted to study the brain patterns of the Gladers, couldn't they put them under complex simulations (like in Divergent)? It'd be stupid if they hadn't invented the technology, because they have "Transvices" and "Flat Trans" (mentioned in the other books) in their world. They have those futuristic devices, but not simulation serums? Also, why do they only measure the killzone (or brains') reactions to negative things and dangerous situations? What about positive emotions/situations? Wouldn't those have to be tested too? I personally think the government and scientists would've just exterminated all the infected and they all would've hid in some bunker. So I think that the Maze Runner is a bit implausible in that regard. But whatever. %%END OF SPOILERS%%
If you liked this review, please read my other ones on movies, TV shows, and videogames. I have reviewed 38 movies, including the 2015 and 2014 films: Taken 3, The Interview, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1, Dracula Untold, The Maze Runner, The Expendables 3, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014), Guardians of the Galaxy, Sharknado 2, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Edge of Tomorrow, X-Men Days of Future Past, Godzilla, Blended, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Divergent, Transcendence, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Blended, The Lego Movie, and more.
I also review TV shows, such as: Empire (2015), The Flash, Arrow (Seasom 3),Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, (Season 1&2), Gotham, The Last Ship, Sleepy Hollow,The 100, I Wanna Marry Harry, Crisis (2014), Gang Related, and more.
Taken 3 (2014)
Bad Editing; Shaky Cam; Uninspired Action. A Half-@$$ed Conclusion to the "Taken" Franchise. (Review By AlexG732)
I was excited to hear that the Taken films would become a trilogy, because I had loved Taken (and had watched it so many times I could remember most of its iconic lines). The first Taken was dark, gritty, and very personal for Bryan Mills--his daughter was abducted and was soon going to be prostituted, he had little time to find her, and they were growing apart as she grew older. Taken 2 was not as good as the first one, but respectable in its own right. Taken really felt like standalone story, so Taken 2 detracted from that and kind of felt unnecessary. Nevertheless, I honestly don't know why people complained so much about Taken 2. Taken 2 expanded well on the characters and furthered themes from Taken. Sure, Taken 2 might've seemingly pulled a "Hangover 2" move and became a rehashed version of it's predecessor. But it had some interesting juxtaposition, as Bryan and Murad (father of Marko, who was tortured then killed by Mills in Taken) were both fathers seeking what they viewed as rightful vengeance for actions perpetrated against their offspring. Taken and especially Taken 2 also both had exotic scenery & locations in Europe (Paris in T1and Istanbul in T2), which really helped sell the films.
Taken 3 probably made a good choice when it decided to NOT have the film's plot revolve around someone being "taken". (How come they never use the word abducted or kidnapped?) However, being set in a typical American city (Los Angeles) and using a pretty generic story (innocent person framed for a crime, must find ones responsible) both didn't set the odds in Taken 3's favor. The whole "framed" trope is not a very effective plot device, because *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* Stuart (Lenore's husband) and Oleg Malankov (Stuart's boss, of a sort) were both involved in Lenore's murder, not as revenge against Bryan, but because of an unpaid debt between the two (and to get her life insurance money). Lenore was killed as punishment from Oleg Malankov against Stuart. Therefore, there is no real meaningful conflict between Malankov and Bryan, as Bryan was simply involved in the entire mess as a scapegoat (and Malankov is set as a villain far too late into the film). Even though Malankov is supposedly some sort of bad@$$, he is a terrible shot and cannot get a single hit on Bryan. Bryan and Stuart's dynamic happens to be convoluted and unsatisfactory. ***END OF SPOILERS, END OF SPOILERS, END OF SPOILERS***
Taken 3 is honestly sub-par and mediocre, especially compared to it's predecessors. I don't even know why Forest Whitaker is in T3; he is such a stereotypical by-the-book cop. I think another actor (Denzel W, Idris E, Samuel L. J) might've been better suited for his role. Unlike Taken 1&2, little time is spent on further developing characters, as the film is very fast-paced. There is action, but it is not very tense or exciting. How are we even supposed to root for Mills to fully kick ass when he's sometimes going up against American cops and possibly endangering civilians? Not to be racist, but it was easy to cheer Mills on as he defeated hordes of evil foreigners. (You could tell from looks who was a bad guy! :P) In chase scenes, shaky camera work truly ruins the fun; they're very choppily and awkwardly edited as well. CGI and big stunt sequences look low budget; Taken 1&2 looked better! The whole film is a half- @$$ed conclusion to the Taken films, with mediocre acting, an uninspired plot, cliché and stereotypical characters (smart person has chess piece & rubberband to fiddle with), "dues ex machina" moments, unimpressive and overdone action sequences, etc. I blame Olivier Megatone and the other crew members (screenwriter, camera crew) for the faults of what could've been a satisfying conclusion to the Taken trilogy.
However, despite everything I said earlier, I cannot deny that some younger (funny cause I am pretty young) and more carefree part of me enjoyed watching Bryan Mills have one last adventure (if indeed this is the last Taken film). I have some fond movie memories of Liam Neeson, and I enjoy most of his films (like Non-Stop in 2014). If you're not as cynical or critical as most movie critics eventually become, you may very well enjoy Taken 3.
Score: 6.9
Empire (2015)
Successful Ratings; a Talented Cast. A Little Overstuffed and Unfocused. (Review by AG732)
Empire seems to be headed in the right direction, and it's definitely doing something right--all of the episodes so far have INCREASED in viewership ratings. For those who don't know much about TV shows, ratings usually decrease with every episode or stay pretty consistent. Empire debuted to around 9.90 million US viewers, and as of episode 4 has 11.36 million viewers. An increase in live viewers is a rare feat, hard to pull off. Ratings will eventually begin to stop growing, but they will definitely stay high. Fox will not cancel this show anytime soon--it has already been renewed for Season 2!
Empire is lifted up, in particular, by the solid acting talent featured on the show. Terrence Howard and Taraji P. Henson notably contribute to this. However, one of the criticisms I have for the show (so far) is that because of its large cast and scope, it is a bit difficult to give fair attention to certain aspects of the show. I think some characters could have a bit more development, which is why I kind of wish episodes could be longer than 42 minutes (which is every episode's duration minus the commercials).
Empire never slows down its dramatic pace, and it keeps you engaged. Empire takes as many compelling story arcs as possible (poverty, crime, LGBT issues, one's legacy and future, family, betrayal, and coming of age) and places them within the show. Arguably, this leads to the plot feeling somewhat overstuffed. The musical family drama has the growing pains of many other dramas before it (featuring some over-the-top acting, stereotypes, and clichés). Certain things on the show require a bit of suspension-of-disbelief (like how do so many people on the show have diseases? Luscious has ALS and Andre, the oldest son, has something as well). Nevertheless, it is always entertaining and captivating to watch. The music doesn't feel contrived or out of place on the show, it feels organic; and I happen to like the music (made by Timbaland).
I think "Empire" is heading for good things, but I happened to feel a slight dip in quality with episodes 3 & 4. Maybe it's because Lee Daniels and Danny Strong weren't involved with the latter, but most of my criticisms were due to the two recent episodes. However, I will still stay with the show until the end, and I hope other viewers will too. A look at the struggles artists face within the competitive music industry, talented stars, good music, and compelling drama all make this seem like a "win" for Lee Daniels and Fox.
Score: 8.9