Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

I guess we should get all the obvious stuff out of the way first. Is it as good as the first one? Is it as fun? Is it darker? I'd say, "Yes!" Alright guys, thanks for reading. That's the entire review.

Seriously though, it's easy to say that Ultron isn't as good as The Avengers. Clearly some of the "wow" factor is gone due to the fact that we've gotten past the idea of even seeing all of these guys on screen together, and a (finally) good Hulk. Ultron does seem less fun somehow, despite having as many one liners.

I feel like Ultron is more of the continuing adventures of The Avengers. An extended Saturday morning cartoon. Ultron has the advantage of familiarity, so we can focus on developing the characters and giving more screen time to people not named Thor or Iron Man.

There's a bit of sequelitis here, with bigger action sequences and the typical raising of the stakes. It is a little darker in tone, but that's probably not a surprise to anyone.

A lot of people seem to forget that the first 40 minutes or so of The Avengers was kinda boring. Not much happens. In Ultron, no time is wasted getting to the action, and there are at least 3-4 extended fighting scenes. There are a few times where there's too much going on, and I would imagine that it would be harder to track it all in 3D. I skipped on the 3D, but will likely check it out on IMAX in the next week or so.

I loved the new additions to the cast, particularly James Spader's voice work as Ultron. For the comic purists, there are few things that'll probably irritate you, but I try not to focus on that kind of stuff anymore.

I hear that Whedon's original cut of this was over 3 hours long and that we're going to get an extended cut with an alternate ending when it comes out on Blu-Ray. I cannot wait for that. I'll probably watch Ultron more on Blu-Ray than I do The Avengers.

So, yeah, I liked it. A lot! If you're a fan, go see it. If you're not, why are you reading this in the first place?

4.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Her (2013)

Do you like hearing people have awkward phone sex?  How about stories showing people falling in love with inanimate objects?  Do you like movies set in the future, yet everyone dresses like 1970's grandparents?  Well then Her is the movie for you!

Clearly I'm oversimplifying when talking about Her, as it's anything but a simple movie.  Her is one of those unusual films that oscillates from being brilliant to just plain weird.  This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to people familiar with writer/director Spike Jonze previous work, especially where Charlie Kaufman was involved.

Her is about Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix), who is currently going through a divorce with Catherine (Rooney Mara).  They had a long, loving relationship, but drifted apart and Theodore's having trouble letting go.  He buys a new, artificially intelligent operating system, mainly to help organize his life.  The OS introduces itself as Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and explains how she's designed to grow and evolve.  As Samantha learns more about the world, they continue to bond and eventually develop an emotional relationship.

Based on the premise of the film, I was worried this was going to be another Lars and the Real Girl, which might as well been called "Entire Town Indulges a Sad Man with Mental Health Issues."  Fortunately, Theodore is more grounded than that.  He's actually a fairly normal guy, just a little introverted.  I still had a bit of an issue with someone falling in love with an AI, but after I thought about it for a bit, is it really all that different from a long distance or exclusively online relationship?  I've watched people have relationships where all the interaction was over the phone or at opposite ends of a keyboard.  Either way there's no physical intimacy.  Is that a requirement for love?  Who's to say that's not the direction we're headed.  Followers of my blog are probably aware of my dislike for online dating.  I share a similar dislike for long distance relationships.  I feel like some of the time it's a way of having an easy relationship where there's not as much at stake.  If things get too difficult, you can just end it without much complication.  This is actually a point brought up during the film, so I appreciated the fact they took this on.

Another interesting point Her made was how all of this technology is actually making us less connected.  In many scenes of the film, you see people walking around, talking into their PDA/phone devices, not even looking up at people immediately around them.  We see this all the time now where people stare into their phones, so zoned out that they bump into people, trip over stuff, or worse.  Recently, I was a bar and noticed that every single person sitting in the bar area was looking into their phone rather than interact with anyone around them.  Don't get me wrong, I've been guilty of this, but it's one of the reasons why I'm trying to move away from stuff like Facebook and Twitter.  It's great to be able to connect with people that live far away or you wouldn't have access to otherwise, but I think our future will be much better off if everyone steps away from their computers, puts down their phones, and works on interacting with those around them a little more.

There were a few little things I found distracting.  One of which was whatever Theodore's job was.  He's some kind of letter writing surrogate, but I never got exactly what he did or what the purpose was.  I didn't feel it was explained all that well, and normally I wouldn't have paid it any mind, but since there are a lot of scenes of him at work and interacting with co-workers (mainly Chris Pratt), it bugged me a bit that it wasn't clear.  Another thing that was too cute was the overall look of the film.  It's very 60's/70's styled with lots of reds and oranges.  People wore awful shirts, had unkempt hairstyles, and had those old man pants with the waistline just below their chest.  They even managed to make Amy Adams look frumpy, but not Olivia Wilde (could anything though?).  It was like hipsters take over in the future, which may be the most terrifying aspect of Her.  Lastly, at just over two hours, the film could have been tightened up a bit.  There were a few scenes that went on too long where the point had been made.  On the other hand, they play hilariously unusual video games and I wish I could have seen more of that.

Joaquin Phoenix was wonderfully nuanced.  As I mentioned earlier, you might want to write Theodore off as a weirdo, and he is kind of a dork, but Phoenix makes him sweet and very sympathetic.  He's searching for the same things we all are.  However, he blows it on a real date with Olivia Wilde's character when she was clearly into him, and that's unforgivable.  I was impressed with Scarlett Johansson's voice work, which had very cute sexiness about it.  I also enjoyed Amy Adams, but I wish she would have been in it more considering she was one of the few real-world friends Theodore had and they had previously dated.  I could have used a little more Rooney Mara, but I think that's due to the fact that I wanted to learn more about their relationship and why it failed.

Her is a smart, thought-provoking film that brings up some interesting ideas regarding love, intimacy and general interaction with people.  I can understand how it might be too strange for some, but I think if you give it a chance and go in with an open mind, you'll find yourself thinking about the film for long after.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Don Jon (2013)

There's nothing like seeing a movie that really speaks to you, but then realize that the fact you identify with it so much means you might have a problem.  That's how I felt after watching Don Jon, the writing and directing debut of Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  I think the JGL got in my head a little bit.

Jon (Joey Go-Levs) has no problem with the ladies.  He's so adept at picking up chicks and getting one night stands that his friends call him "Don Jon".  However, one night he meets Barbara (Scarlett Johansson) and she shuts him down.  Believing she's the hottest chick he's ever seen, he decides to pursue her normally and starts a relationship with her.

Jon has a bit of a secret he's keeping from Barbara though: he loves porn.  He breaks down his "porn philosophy" and why he prefers it to actual sex in a scene that was not only hilarious, but I found mirrored some of my own thoughts a little too closely.  It's pretty bad when you see a montage of porn and recognize some of the stars or even movies the clips come from.  Some would say Jon is addicted to porn, but I would say that it's more that he romanticizes it and it's become a replacement for intimacy.  If anything, I'd say he was more addicted to masturbation.  When your daily masturbation totals approach double digits, I think that's a bigger problem.  It's not like he's hurting anybody though, and it doesn't appear to have much of an effect on his life.  It's not like Michael Fassbender in Shame where it's putting his job in jeopardy.  On the other hand, we've all heard about studies where it's said that easy access to porn is causing people to not pursue meaningful relationships or give up on them when there's the slightest bit of difficulty.  This is just an example of that.

Despite Jon's outward appearance of a meathead, he has good relationship with his family, eating dinner with them frequently and attending church each week to confess to his behavior.  One thing I have to give JGL credit for is that Don Jon is a deeper film than at first glance.  I can understand seeing the trailer and thinking it's going to be some shallow movie about a bunch of guidos that pick up chicks and watch porn, but there's more going on here.  Although I loved the dichotomy of seeing Jon dealing with road rage while driving to church, and his confessions were always good for a laugh.

Anyway, Jon's porn only becomes a problem once Barbara checks his browser history, which is an issue all on it's own.  She really doesn't like porn and thinks it's disgusting.  Jon takes issue with her love of bad romantic comedies, and makes the argument that what you see in a rom-com is no more fake or unrealistic than what you seen in porn.  I have to say I take Jon's side in this fight.  With regards to rom-coms, Don Jon features a few fake movies with some good cameos that audiences should get a kick out of.  Even before Barbara discovered Jon's porn, she started to show her true colors, which reinforced his behavior even more.

Finally, while attending night class, he meets Esther (Julianne Moore) and forms an unusual friendship with her.  Esther's introduction was one of the story elements I thought was a little odd.  When you first see her, she's just crying by herself outside of class and nothing is really said.  It's an awkward introduction, especially when it's obvious she's going to play a bigger part in the story later on.  You don't get Julianne Moore to do a single scene in a movie where she's crying for no reason.  Even as their friendship develops it still seemed odd how she was forcing herself in his life.  Eventually it comes together and leads to a conclusion I wasn't expecting.

The product placement was a little too obvious, as well.  An Apple laptop his heavily featured, there's a very in your face Carl's Jr./Hardee's commercial, as well as an entire conversation revolving around Tivo.  Don't get me wrong, I get why the product placement exists, it was just a little over-the-top.

Despite these small issues, this is a great directorial debut from Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  With both writing, directing, and starring, he may have had a little too much on his plate, but I was still really impressed.  His script is consistently funny and there's a surprising emotional depth.  As you'd expect with JGL, he is great in front of the camera, too.  Leave it to him to make me like and identify with a guido from New Jersey.  This might also be my favorite performance from Scarlett Johansson.  Despite how they make her up for the film, which is totally not my type, it might be the hottest I've seen her.  I've criticized her in the past for being a little wooden, but that was definitely not the case here.  I could make joke about wood, but I won't...

My surprise performance has to go to Tony Danza, who is absolutely fantastic at Jon's dad.  It's a such a great performance that you have to wonder why he hasn't been doing more movies.  Lastly, Brie Larson does her best Silent Bob impression, never speaking while texting the entire movie, until she has one thing to say that makes Jon feel better about himself.

Don Jon is a hilarious and smart film, featuring great performances, and an assured directorial debut from Joseph Gordon-Levitt.  While there are some small flaws, I can't think of too many films this year I've enjoyed more or laughed out loud as much while watching.  I highly recommend checking it out.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Call it Death Star porn.

Hitchcock (2012) - Movie Review

A movie based on a book about the making of a movie.  If this loops on itself more, it'll create a singularity that will destroy us all.

Hitchcock is a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Psycho, a movie that starred Anne Heche and Vince Vaughn.  I'm kidding, of course.  That remake sure was a misfire, wasn't it?  I actually knew very little about the movie Hitchock going in, but I'm always up for a good biopic, especially when it's about such a fascinating person and iconic film.

We begin as Alfred Hitchcock is looking for an idea for his next film.  He wants to do something a little different, and thinks he's found it when he reads the book Psycho by Robert Bloch.  The studio, however, isn't too thrilled with his choice of project, so Hitchcock decides to take a risk and finance the film himself.  He's believes so strongly in the film, that he even has all copies of the book bought up, so that nobody would have the twists spoiled.  Even back then Hitchcock understood the value of no spoilers.  These days any asshat with a blog can spoil a movie for you.  Wait a second...

It's funny to me that a well respected director like Hitchcock didn't have full confidence from the studio when wanting to do a different project.  When you consider the crap that gets made these days, it blows my mind that he'd have difficulty getting a film made.  It also goes to show you how different the business is now.

Hitchcock is based on the book Alfred Hitchcock and the Making of Psycho by Stephen Rebello. From what I hear, it's a fantastic and extremely well researched book that I'm going to have to pick up after watching the film.  Despite being based off such a well respected book, the movie version of it felt a little thin.  I think the problem director Sacha Gervasi (Anvil: The Story of Anvil), and writer John J. McLaughlin had was that they couldn't decide on what to cut from the film.  There's a lot going on, so you have a mix of the film being a little tonally inconsistent and lacking depth in a few key areas.  For example, you learn about his relationship with his wife Alma (Helen Mirren) and their difficulties.  This was an area I wish the film would have gone a little more in depth into.

There are some funny moments, but you never feel like they were making a comedy, and there isn't enough about his personality to come away thinking it's a character study. Throughout the film you see these exchanges between Hitchcock and Ed Gein, an actual serial killer that the character of Norman Bates was based on.  I wasn't clear what these scenes were meant to represent, so they felt odd and seemed like they could have been removed in favor of focusing more on the making of Psychoand Hitchcock's personality and relationships.

I find it a little ironic that a movie about "The Master of Suspense" contained very little actual suspense.  We all know how this is going to turn out.  It's not like we're getting an alternate universe were he's never able to complete the film, or it's a bomb.  It's still fun to watch it all play out though.

As you'd guess, the strength of the film are the performances. Anytime you get Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren as your leads, you know you're going to get a well-acted film.  Mirren is wonderful and you see how Alma was 'the woman behind the man'.  She would have carried the movie by herself were it not for the performance of Anthony Hopkins as Hitchcock.  It seems like kind of an odd choice to get someone so well known to play Hitchcock, but the makeup job is so good, that it actually took me a bit before I realized it was him.  I thought Hopkins was playful and it made me like Hitchcock all the more.  Scarlett Johansson plays Anne Heche...I mean Janet Leigh and I found her to be very pleasant.  Jessica Biel and James D'Arcy have very small roles as Vera Miles and Anthony Perkins.  You'll recognize much of the supporting cast and I was surprised to see people of their caliber play such small roles.  Even The Karate Kid shows up.

Lastly, I wanted to give a small shout out to my favorite theater The Vine (www.vinecinema.com) in Livermore.  They upgraded their screens and projectors just this past week, and boy what an upgrade! The film looked fantastic.  It was bright and clear, with HD quality that rivaled my 3D TV.

Whether you're a fan of Hitchcock, the movie Psycho, or just like a good behind-the-scenes biopic, there's a lot to like about Hitchcock.  I had fun with the film and enjoyed it, but couldn't help thinking there needed to be more.  You have great performances from the cast, but it only scratches the surface.  This isn't something you need to rush out and see, but I do think it's worth seeing.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Avengers (2012) - Movie Review

All hail to the House of Whedon!  He is your new master now!  Just give him the keys to the Mavel Universe and step away.  For the second time in a month, I've seen a movie by Joss Whedon that I can't talk too much about as to not spoil it.  Joss, stop making great movies, so I can talk shit about them!

The Avengers was one of those movies that I never actually thought would happen, let alone work on any level.  How are you going to combine all of the characters and what they've established in several films and it not be a mess?  Well, they managed to pull it off.  It is the definitive superhero team-up movie.  The JLA is on notice!

Having said that, The Avengers does require that you have seen the previous Marvel films.  You don't necessarily have to have them memorized, but at least be familiar with what happened in Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America, Thor, and to a lesser extent, The Incredible Hulk.  Then again, I can't imagine anyone looking forward to this movie that hasn't already seen those.

The basic story is that Thor's brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has recruited an army that he plans on using to dominate Earth.  Early in the movie he's able to steal the Tesseract, also known as the Cosmic Cube (which you've see in both Captain America and Thor), from S.H.I.E.L.D.  He needs the Tesseract to open a portal to bring his army here.  In order to stop Loki, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), reactivates the Avengers initiative.  That's pretty much it.  You've got your villain, you've got your conflict, so assemble the team and fight, right?

The Avengers actually started off kind of slow and for a bit I was worried that maybe it wasn't going to live up to the type.  At 2 hours and 22 minutes, there's a lot they trying to roll up from the previous films and at the same time add depth to some of the newer characters, so the length of the film is forgivable.  Once it hits about the hour mark, it really takes off and becomes a roller coaster ride.  I really can't describe it in words without prattling off a bunch of adjectives.  You just have to experience it.

While I think the weak point of the film were the enemies The Avengers face off against, I did think Tom Hiddleston was great as Loki.  He's just so cold and slimy and Hiddleston seemed to have fun with the role.  Loki is more of the type of villain that will get in your head or get you to argue with your friends, only to look back at him with big grin on his face, satisfied with himself for manipulating you.

There were a couple of fights that had a little too much shaky cam, but that's a nitpick.  I really can't fault anything else with the the movie.

Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., and Chris Hemsworth are all back as Captain America, Iron Man and Thor, respectively.  They play their characters with the same effort and style that they did in their own movies, so there's no disconnect when watching The Avengers and wondering why a character's tone is suddenly different.  Despite the large cast, nobody was giving an effort like they didn't want to be there or were upset with a diminished role.

The real surprises here were Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and especially Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner.  Not so much with their acting, as we all know what they are capable of, but it's how they fleshed out their characters.  Like many, I wasn't too impressed with how Black Widow looked compared to guys like Thor and Iron Man.  What's she going to do with a handgun, when you have the might of the Hulk standing next to her?  They successfully turned her into a badass.  It's the same with Hawkeye.  He's a character I've never had any interest in, but again, they showed you why he deserves to be on the team.  Initially, I was nervous about yet another recasting of Bruce Banner, but ultimately, I think Ruffalo's portrayal as Banner is the best we've seen so far.

Speaking of the Hulk, this is easily the best the Hulk has ever looked on camera!  In Eric Bana's Hulk, he was too big and blocky; in Ed Norton's The Incredible Hulk, he was too ripped, but they got the perfect balance of the two this time around.  I don't want to spoil anything, but this is the Hulk movie you've been waiting for.  The best moments in the movie belong to him and he's simply awesome!

The Avengers is a team effort though and once the action gets going they really capture that dynamic well.  Captain America falls into his natural leadership role and everyone has their part to play.  You have to credit writer/director Joss Whedon, who's used to working with large ensemble casts.  He was able to balance everything out well.  They even gave some depth to some of the side characters like Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) and Agent Colson (Clark Gregg).  They stand out and they get to have their moments.  I can't mention everyone, but you get to see many side characters from the previous Avengers-related films pop up.  No Happy Hogan though.  He's too busy producing.

As you'd expect from Joss Whedon, The Avengers is funny and has that witty banter you've come to enjoy in his work.  The story was co-written by Zak Penn, who's also wrote The Incredible Hulk, X2 and several other (lesser) Marvel comic films, so I think his involvement helped with the consistency of the Marvel Universe.  While there's the great action and humor, there's also some more human moments that I actually felt were kind of touching.  There's definitely more going on here than just popcorn fluff.

As it was shot in 3D, the 3D looked great and this is one of the few times I'd recommend seeing this in 3D or especially on IMAX, which I did and thought it was awesome!

Oh, stay until the end of the credits.  The very end...

The Avengers could have been a disaster, but it ends up being easily the best Marvel film and second only to The Dark Knight as far as superhero movies goes.  Joss Whedon managed to make me feel like a kid again, without making a movie that's for kids.  It's action packed, funny and everything you want your summer blockbusters to be.  It's the comic book fan's dream!  This is going to be in my top ten favorites of the year, so I'm not even going to pretend otherwise.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars!!