It’s hard to imagine why a developer would want to adopt a 20 year old franchise (that isn’t Star Wars/Trek) to create a game out of. Then again, Jurassic Park is no slouch in the epic-blockbuster universe. Not to mention there’s been no shortage of rumors about yet another sequel.

TellTale games, purveyors of such excellent point-and-click adventure titles as the new Monkey Island and Back to the Future is readying a Fall 2011 release for Jurassic Park: The Game for Mac, PC, Xbox 360 and PS3 platforms simultaneously. Some may remember that the title was set to launch in April of this year but was delayed in order to implement new game mechanics and a new story. Consumers who preordered were issued refunds AND a free game of their choice. Pretty ballsy move, but demonstrated a clear care for their customers.

So here we are, starting up September and the hype has started again. Today’s entertainment is The Jurassic Park: The Game Action Montage. The power is dead, the gates are down and the lizards are hungry.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os0prnT-muw

What happens when you mix an art-house movie with an action thriller?  Drive.

Drive stars Ryan Gosling as a professional driver.  He drives for movie stunts, for criminal getaways, and fixes cars with what time he has left.  He knows cars better than people.  His character is remarkably placid for someone involved in such boisterous professions though.  After a girl (Carey Mulligan) enters his life of solitude, he finds himself taking risks he knows he shouldn’t and is soon involved way too deep with some mob business gone wrong.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWX34ShfcsE

This movie is all about style, and I don’t mean flashy Hollywood style or anything derogatory.  This director has a unique vision and executes it perfectly.  Whether or not you’ll like his style is the big question.  The director, Nicolas Winding Refn, has garnered some critical acclaim for past movies, only one of which I’ve seen.  It was called Valhalla Rising, and I was psyched for a cool Viking action movie.  What I got was the slowest-paced, most plotless, rambling mess of a movie I’ve seen in years.  So I had quite a bit of trepidation about his latest movie.

The slow pace is still there, but thankfully it’s not as bad.  There are lingering shots of characters’ faces and long pauses between lines of dialogue, so much so that some of the ruder people in the audience started snickering and catcalling to the characters during the silences.  I admit, there are definitely scenes that tried my patience too.

Another style choice is the odd 80′s vibe throughout the movie.  It’s not set in the 80′s at all.  But the music, credits, and some clothes are all thoroughly 80′s.  I don’t know why–it doesn’t have anything to do with the movie.  Maybe the director just likes it.  It does stick out a bit awkwardly, but because it’s done so consistently that it all works together.

Gosling’s character is so calm and smooth that when the action and violence breaks out, it’s shocking.  So often in action movies, violence doesn’t feel dangerous.  Maybe it’s that “desensitization” we keep hearing about.  Somehow, this movie RE-sensitizes you, so that each violent scene is brutal and horrifying.  Again, my not-so-bright audience laughed and applauded at several of these scenes, which really just proves they didn’t get the point.  It was actually kind of scary how bloodthirsty some of them were.

The violence is effective, the character is enigmatic, the plot is twisty, and the acting is generally great.  Side characters include Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, and Bryan Cranston.  I don’t understand all the decisions that some characters make, but I like that they feel authentic.

There are 2 car chases, as would be expected for a movie with a professional driver.  One is a cat-and-mouse type, that managed to find a new way to present the decades-old cliche of a car chase.  The other is more traditional, but still done very well.  For most people, the end of the movie, with the action and plot reveals, will be enough to make up for the artsy nature of the first half.  It’s slow and methodical, and Gosling is so reserved that you want to just shake his silly 80′s jacket to make him do something.  I liked this first half, but I’m also glad that it picked up steam eventually.  Your opinion will likely be higher or lower based solely on how tolerant you are of the first half hour or so.  By the end, though, I think this one will grab you.

I’ll be the first to admit that I wasn’t a huge fan of the Mission Impossible movie series. I enjoyed the movies, but felt they never lived up to their potential. One of my biggest issues was in the basic concept: Mission Impossible should have been about an elite team, but these movies focused more on the individual, Tom Cruise. Sure, he had help – but that help was there to assist him rather than work with him. That said, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol was directed by famed animation director, Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles), and that alone had me excited about the fourth movie in the franchise – and I wasn’t disappointed.

After a wonderful teaser, Ghost Protocol begins with Ethan Hunt (Cruise) breaking out of a maximum security Russian prison with help from his soon-to-be team of Benji (Simon Pegg) and Jane (Paula Patton). Right at the top, Ghost Protocol sets its tone – the jailbreak is equal parts exciting and humorous – something that holds throughout the film.

Once he’s reunited with his team, Hunt gets the mission in the typical fashion. That mission, should they choose to accept it, is to track down stolen launch codes for former Soviet nuclear missiles, before they get in the hands of Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist). Along the way, fourth team member Brandt (Jeremy Renner) joins them. Soon Hunt’s entire team is framed for the theft and Ghost Protocol is invoked – the U.S. government no longer acknowledges they exist. Ethan and his team have to go rogue, with the potential of being branded as terrorists, in order to stop a nuclear disaster.

Hendricks’ plan is more of a MacGuffin than anything, but it works to move the plot along. He intends to incite a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia, eliminating most of the world’s population and granting humanity a chance to start over. It boils down to Hunt’s team needing to stop the launch of a nuclear missile. This all leads to a series of breath-taking action sequences which flow seemingly from one to another – something Brad Bird proved he was great at in The Incredibles.

Some highlights include the now famous “window climbing” sequence, a break-in at the Kremlin, a chase through a sandstorm, and a hand-to-hand fight in a futuristic garage in India. Each one is cartoonish in its own way, often pushing the boundaries of reality. And yet, despite this, these sequences look and feel so real, we’re willing to believe them.

The most important thing to take away, however, is that for the first time a Mission Impossible movie actually feels like a team adventure. Every character has a role; every character is involved in the action. In fact, the movie even pokes fun at the previous films when, at one point, Hunt insists on going alone, he is told flat out that is impossible – he needs help.

Tom Cruise is the best he’s been in any of the films, mixing a good deal of humor in with the action and his morbid past. The unbelievable feats he attempts are made all the more real by his disbelief that he’s actually doing them – something made clear in the window climbing. Simon Pegg adds even more levity, providing most of the humor of the film – particularly in a sequence where he helps an equally enjoyable Jeremy Renner break into a nearly-impossible room that controls a satellite. Even Paula Patton, whose character is mostly serious, adds some laughter when she tries to seduce an Indian millionaire playboy to get his computer access codes.

In one simple word, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is fun. It’s a thrill ride that doesn’t shove things down your throat, like so many modern action movies do. It’s equal parts funny and exciting – and you can’t help but leave with a smile on your face. For that alone the movie is an incredible success.

Here’s hoping that Brad Bird directs the next Mission Impossible as well.

Virtually the entire marketing campaign for Act of Valor has focused on its authenticity.  Active-duty soldiers play the Navy SEALs in the movie.  Real weapons and live ammunition were used.  The story was based on real events recounted by soldiers.  And for what it’s worth, this aspect is largely successful.  I saw the movie with a military veteran who, while not a SEAL, gave it a thumbs up for authenticity.

The problem arrives when you realize it’s not a documentary but a movie.  The soldiers are also asked to act, and they just don’t sound natural in the non-combat scenes.  They always sound like they’re reading lines, and everything just seems stiff and overly explanatory.  As in many action movie, you look forward to the next action scene.  That’s especially true in this case because it provides a welcome respite from the tin-eared dialogue.

I did like the two villains though.  I think they were actual actors, and their characters had an interesting symbiotic relationship despite very different “careers” in villainy.  I also liked the global nature of the plot, involving Mexico, Africa, Russia, and the Philippines in a way that made sense.

Another thing that bothered me was how ruthless the SEALs seemed to be.  There were many scenes involving shooting first and asking questions later.  There was rarely any attempt to disarm or disable; instead, it seems like kill shots were the first attempt in every situation.  It’s certainly likely that maybe I’m conditioned to expect more mercy from action heroes precisely because I’ve seen so many movies, and maybe in real life it’s much more “kill or be killed” as depicted here.

The final thing I didn’t care for was the odd tone of self-sacrifice running throughout.  Don’t misunderstand me here; self-sacrifice is entirely admirable and especially so with our Armed Forces.  This should not be construed as anything political or negative in that regard.  I have no problem with the idea they were presenting, but the tone seemed off.  There were explicit statements about shutting off emotions, being dangerous at all times, and a weird sense that dying for your country is something to actually strive for.  Dying for your country is incredibly brave, but the weird semi-eagerness for death was off-putting.

Ending on a positive note though, the action scenes are pretty good.  There’s a jungle rescue in the beginning that’s pretty fantastic.  It’s set up well, executed well, looks good, is easy to follow, and has a pretty impressive conclusion.  The whole sequence was great.  There are a couple more throughout, and the finale is also well done, although not as good (in my opinion) as the first one.

I’ve heard people say this is just propaganda, or a recruiting film for the military.  I don’t think that’s very accurate.  Sure, it portrays the military in a positive light, but what action movie doesn’t?  And I appreciate the story not having all the soldiers come through unscathed.  So any perceived jingoism didn’t bother me.  What did is the poor writing/acting in the dialogue scenes and the overly gung-ho tone I felt a few times.  These are very subjective though, so you might like it more.

I don’t watch previews anymore, but apparently a good chunk of the buzz on this movie is about the disappointing marketing.  I haven’t seen the trailer, but the garish red and yellow posters are unattractive, and the title–”John Carter”–is certainly much blander than the title of the book on which it’s based: A Princess of Mars.

I’m hoping to convince you not to be scared off by bad advertising!  John Carter is creative, fun, well-made, and certainly worth your attendance.  A big selling point (that I understand was not used) is that the director is Andrew Stanton, who directed Wall-E and Finding Nemo.  They’re both stellar movies, and the switch from animation to live-action shouldn’t concern anyone–the director obviously knows how to engage an audience.

The cast is led by an acceptable Taylor Kitsch.  He’s decent as John Carter, a Civil War veteran who is tired of fighting, finds himself on Mars against his will, and just wants to go home to look for gold.  Hoping to change his mind is a great cast of actors, both live and in motion-capture form.  Mark Strong and Ciaran Hinds are two of my favorite character actors, playing Martian locals, Thomas Haden Church and Willem Dafoe provide great voice work for CGI aliens, and Lynn Collins as the heroine Dejah (the titular Princess from the book title) is a revelation.  She’s fantastic and I couldn’t believe I hadn’t seen her before.  Turns out I had seen her in few odds and ends, but this is by far her biggest role to date and she makes the most of it.

The art direction SHOULD win an Oscar next year.  (I say “should” because the Academy inevitably gets more wrong than right.)  The look of the movie, the design of the ships and cities and weapons, is wholly unique.  I was constantly impressed and wanted to watch segments in slow motion, just to soak it all in and analyze/appreciate it.  The overall story is a bit cliche, which isn’t entirely fair since it’s 100 years old and it’s only because so many other stories have been inspired by this that it seems familiar to me.  Luckily, there are also enough characters and details that it still offered something new.  I’ve heard some people say it’s too convoluted.  I disagree with that, although I do think that a few pieces don’t fit well with each other.

Which leads to my main complaint.  Perhaps it’s all adapted from the book, but there are definitely scenes that don’t make logical sense.  These mysterious priest characters seem to be manipulating the mortals to do their bidding, but they don’t really seem affected by the outcome.  So why are they going through all the trouble to steer it in certain directions?  Similarly, for having such power, they sure make things difficult for themselves by only using said power in select situations instead of all the time.  This happens often, with various characters taking (or not taking) actions that are seemingly not the best course of action for their stated goals.

One thing that others might quibble with, but shouldn’t, is the technology.  In this movie, the Martian air is breathable, solar ships can fly at night, there are rivers on Mars, etc.  This movie is not scientifically accurate, but it’s absolutely not trying to be.  It’s just a good old-fashioned adventure movie that didn’t want to be behold to the trappings of reality.  I say Bravo.  Reality is great on occasion, but in a sci-fi action movie, a little unreality is pretty welcome too.

I want this movie to do well, despite all signs pointing toward a financial failure.  Not even just for a sequel, but for all movies of this type.  Big, grand, creative, epic movies that take me places I haven’t even imagined and introduce me to characters I’d love to hang out with (mostly Dejah and the alien dog Woola) are exactly what I like to see.  I’m afraid if this movie fails, Hollywood is going to tighten up and go back to more generic action movies like Safe House.  Go see this!

Battleship is not a very good movie, which the public seems to have surmised already.  Ostensibly based on the Hasbro board game of the same name, which in fact is itself subject to ridicule, Battleship must invent a story to replace the lack of one in the game.  Although to be fair, “blow up all the other guy’s ships” could effectively sum up both a session of the game AND the plot of this movie.  So maybe I should give them credit for being more faithful than I thought.

The casting just screams “gimmick.”  Rihanna, the singer, is rather prominent.  Brooklyn Decker, a swimsuit model is also one of the secondary characters.  Yes, with an actual speaking role.  They both perform adequately, but bring nothing to the screen other than a blatant attempt to lure a wider audience demographic.  Liam Neeson (hey, a respected actor!) is in the movie, but his character is shut out of the plot for most of the movie, so he’s only in a few scenes.  The main character is played by Taylor Kitsch…poor, poor Taylor Kitsch.  He was the lead in notorious flop John Carter a scant 2 months ago (although I thought that was actually a good movie).  Now he’s back so soon in another under-performing blockbuster.  He’s worse here though.  Maybe it’s how his character is written, but he’s introduced as a loser and not worthy of respect.  He stays this way until the plot forces him to suddenly become heroic, with no actual reason for his change.

Oh, right, the plot.  Essentially, aliens land in the water near Hawaii and start doing…stuff.  The Navy doesn’t know what, but it’s probably bad, so we start fighting and it turns out the aliens are MUCH better at fighting than us.  Well, until the finale, of course.  That was one of my biggest problems.  The aliens are SO amazing when introduced that it makes it wholly unbelievable when the tides are turned and we start taking them out.  Their shields cover all of Hawaii, so the humans’ main fleet can’t get in, but somehow they don’t have shields on their ships.  Also, they can’t shoot us at night because their ships can’t see us.  Don’t they have radar, or sonar, or heat-seekers, or any single imaging technology?  Lucky for them, we don’t either.  This leads to one of the more clever moments of the movie, as a Japanese officer comes up with a low-tech way to find out where the enemy is at night.

This scene also leads to one of the actual game tie-ins.  There is a grid, with enemy ships on it, and to target them, they call out Letters and Numbers.  But not B-19, because that would sound silly.  So they use Navy-speak and say “Bravo One Niner.”  But it’s right there on screen that it’s B-19, which I actually thought was kind of fun/funny, especially when they follow a missile launch with “Its a miss, sir.”  The other reference is the alien ordinance looks like the pegs from the game–just much more high-tech and explodey.  They miss a great opportunity to reference the game though, by having no submarines.  The game has 5 ships, but the movie only uses 2 of them.  Destroyers mainly, and one Battleship.

The Battleship is in the finale, of course, and I won’t give it away, but there is a kind of secret to the Battleship that is awesome in a ridiculous way.  While it doesn’t make a lot of sense, the idea is so audacious and amusing that it’s worth a review point on its own.  The effects, a.k.a. the real reason to see this movie are generally great.  The ships look good, the “death balls” that launch onto the mainland and tear everything up are cool, and the shots of the firefights in the water between vessels are really spectacular.  So I can’t complain about that.  What I can complain about is that they took the already-derided aesthetic of the Transformers movies and made theirs far too similar.  Their ships are actually cleaner than the Transformers, but still very busy to the eye.

The last point I’ll mention is that the director, Peter Berg, is a genuine fan of the Navy.  I think his father was in the Navy, and I’ve read interviews where he talks about his love of naval history.  He treats ships and sailors with reverence.  In fact, I’m positive many of the small characters were played by actual sailors.  The way they gave their lines gave me the impression they were not real actors, and who better for a military buff to put into his movie than actual military vets?  There’s an ultimate homage to the Pearl Harbor veterans at the end that is wonderfully earnest, so I have to give some credit there.

My score of 5 may not seem too bad, but I’m notoriously generous to action movies.  For anyone else, this would likely be a 4.  While it’s not a good movie, it’s not unpleasant to watch on a summer afternoon.  So it’s better than nothing, but not as good as most other summer movies.

Anyone who got hyped up for the first Expendables can’t be faulted.  A big cast of famous action heroes, all together as a team, in a gritty/goofy throwback to action movies that had guns and bombs instead of aliens and robots and superheroes.  Stallone brought the project together and should be commended for that.  The movie itself, while fun, didn’t quite live up to what it should have been.  Yet it did well enough for a sequel, and it’s like they took all of my problems and addressed each one.

The Expendables 2 is bigger and better in nearly every way.  The cast lost only Mickey Rourke, kept Stallone, Statham, Li, Crews, Lundgren, Couture, and got Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme, more Bruce Willis, more Schwarzenegger, and…Liam Hemsworth.  Who?  Exactly.  Hemsworth has no business being in the above company.  At first this bothered me, but then the movie smartly wrote that as part of his character–the new guy in with the old veterans, and how fits in or not.  It was handled well enough to flip my opinion on his inclusion in the movie.

So the cast is better, and the action is amped up just as much.  The action scenes are pretty crazy, and they try to give each character a signature moment.  I can’t remember all of them, but there are clearly hero moments for the majority of the cast, where they are prominently featured in a bit of action. The fighting still sticks to that old-school motif of guerrilla/militia warfare.  No CGI ridiculousness, with an exception I’ll get to later.  This time out, they add some battle vehicles and interesting Eastern European locations that look better than the jungle/mansion that were the main features of the previous one.

The audience I was with clapped repeatedly throughout, laughing often at the jokes, and cheering the appearance of each character.  It was thoroughly enjoyable throughout.  Perhaps nostalgia did goose the reaction a bit, but that’s certainly forgivable.   I did have a couple problems though.  Nothing big, just noticeable points deducted from the overall.

First, the CGI exception I mentioned above.  There is lots of digital blood.  The movie is so violent and over-the-top that in many of the scenes of grunts getting mowed down by machine guns, there are clearly digital blood spurts instead of squibs.  This movie didn’t have a huge budget, so the quality of the effects isn’t quite up to snuff.  I have to assume that it was cheaper than using all practical effects for the dozens (hundreds?) of people that get shot, but it does take away from the believability a bit.  For a similar, super-violent movie that DOES look real, check out Rambo from a few years ago, Stallone’s swan song as the character.  Now THAT looked real.

The other main problem was the script.  Anyone interested in this movie likely knows going in that the script won’t be top-shelf.  There are several clunky one-liners, backstory exposition, and awkward transitions.  Largely, because it’s Schwarzenegger, or Lundgren, or Van Damme, or someone else who’s never been considered a good actor, you don’t care much, but you still notice.  After the movie, a friend and I picked a couple of those out as good efforts, but not very smooth.  It’s like the script could have used another polish, but they didn’t try because “Hey, it’s an action movie, nobody will care.”

Overall, though, this movie totally fulfills the potential of the concept and fixes almost everything I thought was wrong with the original.  If you’re interested in it, but concerned if it can deliver, then you can be assured that it does.  After this, I’m really hoping for an Expendables 3, especially after I read a rumor that they wanted Clint Eastwood for the next one!  It’s a very long shot, but it’s fun to think about.

Hollywood loves antiheroes these days.  Dark, brooding, and dangerous are all adjectives that lately describe the good guys in movies.  Questionable characters, dragged into action with murky motives, have gained popularity as movies keep pushing for “gritty” realism, wanting to be respected for acknowledging that life’s situations aren’t black and white.

Well, forget that for Gangster Squad.  This is a throwback movie both in era (it takes place in the 40′s and 50′s) and in style.  The good guys are noble, the villains are cruel, and you’re never confused about who to root for.  Gangster Squad is obviously about organized crime, although I can’t think of another mafia movie that takes place in Los Angeles, instead of the usual Mob stories in Chicago, Las Vegas, or New York.  That sets a slightly different tone from the start.  It’s actually based on a true story too.  I don’t pretend that this is a documentary, but the main plot actually happened.

Josh Brolin plays an honest cop, a WWII vet who still wants to do good now that the war is over.  He’s not afraid of anyone, and does whatever it takes to do the right thing, even if it crosses some sort of procedural line.  He has a family that he loves and just wants to make sure his hometown is a good place for them.  There is no “anti” in his hero.  Sean Penn plays Mickey Cohen, a ruthless upstart gangster, who learned his trade back East and decides to use his skills in the relatively open territory of LA, where the big crime families don’t have a strong foothold. He’s got no remorse and no morals.  There are no redeeming qualities in his villain.

The plot (without spoilers) centers on a group of good cops who need to take Cohen down before he takes over the city.  To do this, they might have to go outside the lines of the law.  I don’t think this contradicts my earlier statement about the purity of the heroes.  They have to go around the law because too many officers are paid off, and the law in this situation is red tape getting in the way of justice.  The titular Squad consists of Brolin, Robert Patrick, Anthony Mackie, Michael Pena, Giovanni Ribisi, and Ryan Gosling.  It’s a great cast, with each member being unique.  Several are WWII Vets, Pena and Mackie are dealing with race issues while still wanting to do the right thing, and Robert Patrick plays an awesome character–one of the last cowboys.  Gosling is the smooth talker and a magnet for Emma Stone, the only major female character in the movie (various wives aside).  He’s also the only one who really has any shades of gray–and they’re a very light gray.

So it’s a cop movie, a period movie, an action movie, and a bit of a mystery movie.  All the facets work well.  The pacing is excellent.  Compared to several of the holiday blockbusters that were close to 3 hours, this movie zips by.  The action is well done, and with a clear rooting interest, you are more invested in the outcome.  The outcome may not be in question, but it’s very satisfying when it gets there.

There are no glaring flaws, unless you consider the rather one-dimensional characters a problem.  As I stated, I thought it was refreshing to see a hero cop who’s just a good guy.  Period.  Soldier, family man, leader.  I want every policeman in America to be like this guy.  One of the car chases is a little hard to follow.  And Emma Stone, while looking great, doesn’t really have a lot to do (although her character is somewhat necessary to the plot).  Plus, there are several references to Los Angeles areas, including 2 lines that specifically refer to the city I live in that got huge laughs in my theater.

Go see this.  It’s definitely a crowd-pleaser, especially if you live in LA.  Enjoy a clear-cut hero and villain.  There will be conflicted characters on screen all year, but it’s nice to see a kind of Old Hollywood movie for a change.

In the 1990′s, it seemed there was no shortage of action movies that could be described as “Die Hard on a _______.” After the last decade of superheroes, robots, and wizards, it feels oddly old-school to have a new movie where the bad guys are just plain old foreigners, with Olympus Has Fallen—a.k.a. “Die Hard in the White House.”

Starring Gerard Butler, who has yet to recapture his glory from 300 back in 2007, and an impressive supporting cast of familiar faces, Olympus Has Fallen is the story of a lone Secret Service agent who is the last chance for America after terrorists have taken over the White House. It’s a very good example of doing something WELL, instead of doing something NEW. There is very little surprise in the movie. The story, situations, characters, and twists are all what you expect if you’ve seen enough of these kinds of movies. What it lacks in suspense it makes up for in execution though.

The attack on the White House is very exciting and a bit scary. I do not know how plausible this kind of plot would be (hopefully not very), but the movies makes it LOOK plausible, which is crucial. There are shades of 9/11 involved, enough to make you think “yeah, that could happen.” They obviously didn’t shoot this at the real White House, so I don’t know if they used a model, sets, or CGI (probably all 3), but it looked extremely realistic. Maybe it would look less so to someone who lives in Washington and is more familiar with the layout of the grounds, since even I am nearly positive the actual building is set much further back from the street than portrayed.

The villains are North Koreans, and are suitably evil. They really do a good job of making you root against them as characters, since it’s hard to actually get fired up about North Korea, despite their recent real-world posturing. Like the Red Dawn remake last year, the idea of North Korea being sophisticated and powerful enough to attack the US is fairly ludicrous, but the filmmakers needed SOMEone to be the bad guy, and North Korea is the go-to country that we don’t like and aren’t really worried about offending.

Gerard Butler does a good job in the role of Last Man Standing. This is certainly his best movie since 300 and he should probably stick to more of these kinds of roles. He gets perhaps a bit too lucky and is maybe a bit too skillful, considering he is ostensibly fighting against trained killers, but such is the nature of action movies. It’s at least more realistic than the latest Die Hard movie.

My wife and I discussed a couple of the flaws or questions we had afterwards, but we both really liked it. The fact that she wanted to see this one enough to go out on opening night and then enjoyed it speaks well of both the marketing and the final product. It’s amazing that a movie featuring a takeover of the White House feels almost like a “small” action movie, but it’s a refreshing break from all the supernatural stuff we’ve been getting lately. They picked their niche and they delivered. Recommended on the basis of fun and entertainment, not because of any groundbreaking achievements.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is an odd sequel. With only 1 1/2 returning cast members and an entirely new look and behind-the-scenes team, it feels more like a reboot than a sequel. However, it IS a sequel–the plot directly references the first one in several key places, and entirely ignores the first one in other aspects, some of them quite large as well. It’s a muddled concept from the start.

It’s not a total failure, though. The disconnect from the first movie probably won’t bother most, since the general reaction to it was rather poor. That first movie really aimed to be a giant summer blockbuster. This one feels scaled down, which is too bad. On the other hand, that lower budget and expectations really seemed to give them freedom to embrace some of the goofier aspects of G.I. Joe as a toy/cartoon franchise.

At several points in this movie, I thought to myself “Hey, didn’t I have the toy of that vehicle when I was a kid?” It’s kind of fun to see a real version of the high-tech Cobra weaponry that accompanied the action figures. Ditto for the costumes. The movie certainly doesn’t hew too close to realism, consider the large contingent of ninjas dressed in red, and one Joe dressed in bright yellow–they practically look like outfits from Mortal Kombat.

The acting is a mixed bag. Considering there is virtually nobody left from the first movie, we’re starting over. The Rock is fun to watch, but he always is, and I don’t think he did anything special here. DJ Cotrona has almost no personality. Adrianne Palicki is the main/only female character, so she stands out in that aspect. Her performance was fine. Bruce Willis actually does look like he’s having some fun, but he also doesn’t really belong in the movie. It’s like he had a free week, so the producers decided to shoehorn him in because, hey, who doesn’t like Bruce Willis? His role is pretty superfluous though. Same for Ray Stevenson, as the main Cobra henchman. The best actor by far is Jonathan Pryce. He is great in his role, and it’s nice to see a “respected” actor not afraid to wallow in a silly blockbuster.

The plot–as in, Cobra’s plan to rule the world, is good, culminating in a fantastic scene with Zartan and the 7 other biggest world leaders at a supposed conference. I won’t ruin it, but it’s a great evil scheme and genuinely suspenseful. Side note to that–somehow, North Korea is included in this summit of the 8 most powerful nations–which is really just an excuse to AGAIN poke fun at North Korea, the last remaining ethnic group that Hollywood doesn’t care about offending (see my review of Olympus Has Fallen).

The plot may be fine, but I have to fault the director for big holes and just plain dumbness. The movie kind of jumps around without flowing very well. There is no real introduction to the characters, despite all being new. Why is The Rock code-named Roadblock? Why does Bruce Willis call Lady Jaye “Brenda” twice, after she says that’s not her name? Does he know her? After leaving an ambush in a hurry, how does Roadblock suddenly have a massive arsenal scavenged from the ambush site? Why does the villain flee to the dock and choose the smaller, slower boat, leaving the hero to jump in a faster boat to pursue him? The movie is full of this stuff. Maybe I should blame the writers, but this movie is DUMB.

It’s sure fun at times though, seeing toys and cartoons come to life. The movie works best when it embraces the ridiculous and over-the-top. Anytime it tries to be “gritty” are the weakest points. Overall, if you can’t tolerate illogical movies, or like serious action movies, skip this one. If you’re just looking for an entertaining ride one evening, this fits the bill.

Superman is simply the most recognizable, iconic character in the country.  I read that the S-shield is the second-most known symbol in the entire world, after the Christian cross.  He has been part of every medium there is, yet his film history is spotty.  The first two movies are remembered extremely fondly, but they are also very old and a bit dated.  The 3rd and 4th movies in the original series weren’t really liked by anyone.  2006 saw an attempted relaunch/sequel (remember, this was after a successful reboot of Batman with Batman Begins), and while I personally liked it, most people didn’t and I can see why.

Finally we are now getting Man of Steel, which might as well be called Superman Begins.  “Godfathered” by Dark Knight maestro Christopher Nolan, but not directed by him, this is a ground-floor reboot. It changes a lot of what we know.  Will people embrace it or keep pining for the Classic version they know and love? I don’t know if there’s an easy answer.  It will differ for everyone.  For me, I welcome changes.  I never read Superman comic books, and the last thing I wanted was a reboot that told the same origin (I’m looking at you, Amazing Spider-Man).  Thank goodness for the variety this movie offers.

An origin story does necessarily include Krypton, but holy cow, what a Krypton.  The amount of imagination on display here is staggering.  The basics are all there, but the additional detail is great and results in a much stronger foundation for the character, who is after all, an alien.  This strong foundation of his home planet informs much of the movie, which takes a good look at Superman as a real character torn between his real planet that he never knew, and his adopted home, which hasn’t been too peachy to him.

Yes, this Superman movie dares to be thoughtful and character-driven.  It’s not just a summer action movie.  I mean, it is, but it’s got a lot more depth than most.  For people who rail against shallow explosions, this movie will be a welcome relief.  Except, you know, for all the explosions.  After all, it IS a comic book movie about the strongest character in the world.  There is so much destruction in this movie that it’s hard to comprehend.  I wouldn’t dare say it’s “realistic,” but it seems an accurate depiction of what would really happen were Superman to unleash his full power.  The only person who could stand up to his full power, of course, is a fellow Kryptonian–General Zod, whom you may remember from Superman II.  Their battle is insanely big.

The cast is nearly great all around.  Henry Cavill makes a terrific Clark Kent.  He’s certainly got the physique, but also bring a vital warmth to the character.  Michael Shannon is always stellar, mostly in indie movies, but he brings his usual quality here.  Amy Adams plays Lois Lane as a real reporter, which is nice…but they also do something new with her character that I won’t reveal here.  It might upset comic purists, but I liked it a lot.  Kevin Coster as Jonathan Kent is great, possibly my favorite performance in the movie.  Russel Crowe as Jor-El has more screen time than I thought he would and makes the most of it.

The director is Zack Snyder, from 300, Watchmen, and Sucker Punch.  He’s definitely had a signature style, using slow and fast-motion for unique action scenes.  I loved it; others haven’t.  It doesn’t matter though because he abandons that style for this movie.  Not a slo-mo shot to be found. The action is still easy to follow, which is really all I care about.  I hate it when the camera shakes so much or is so rapidly edited that I can’t see what’s happening.  In Man of Steel, you always know what’s happening in the action scenes. Besides the action, there are several emotional scenes that really come across as sincere and effective.  They don’t feel like obligatory scenes between the action–they are just as important in understanding the character of Clark.

Ultimately, this movie is about Clark finding his way.  Is he human?  Kryptonian?  Does he want to fight or be left alone?  It’s a movie with serious themes surrounded in superhero action.  It’s got something for everyone and I hope we get to follow this Clark through more of his life.  Superman is back, and we’re all the better for it!

It was only about five years ago, that it was announced that J.J. Abrams took the reins of the rebooting of pinnacle geek culture, STAR TREK. With that superb success, it shortly hoped for & later confirmed that there was a coming sequel. A big difference between the Star Trek of old and that of the new was that J.J. Abarams adds more of an action back-bone to the franchise, while also honoring the fans with callbacks to canon.

For fans already familiar with the original Star Trek movies, they will be given a bit of a head-start. The cool thing about J.J. Abrams is that, he was given the opportunity to rebooting the Star Trek franchise in a way that allows him to change Star Trek canon without changing it too much. This latest sequel of the J.J. Abrams STAR TREK is similar to the first. It retells a story fans are familiar with, but in a new way with a few twists to keep them on their toes.

Similar to predecessor, from a cinematic standpoint, J.J. had tendency to remind us how much he likes to use lens flares. That being said, the visuals are once again are superb.

Acting wise, the cast again manages to honor the original characters while also making the part their own (instead of some caricature of the original).

Overall it’s a fun ride and very enjoyable film to watch.

As someone who read The Hobbit in 5th grade, I’m a long-time fan of Middle Earth and exactly the type of audience member who is preconditioned to like these movies no matter what.  I liked the first installment of The Hobbit very much.  However, I am not so far removed from objectivity that I can’t see and understand the criticisms that other people had with it.  It was slightly too goofy, and rather slow-paced.  (I don’t give any credence to the complaint of too many dwarves, though.  That’s how the book is written, and the movie doesn’t ask you to remember more than the 2 or 3 that are most prominently featured).  So if people are approaching part 2 of this Hobbit story a little more cautiously, they are justified in doing so.  Happily, this one improves on both of the major complaints I mentioned above, plus a few other changes that may be “controversial” to fans of the book.

In addressing the pace, well, this is the middle chapter.  There are no introductions or setup.  The movie starts mid-adventure and stays that way throughout the running time.  Not only does this reduce the slower parts of the first one, but the movie itself is about 9 minutes shorter.  Both are good things for the general public.  And as for the goofiness, if that’s the right word…there is less of it.  Specifically, there is less corny humor.  It’s not gone.  There are still jokes, but they fit better this time around.  I also want to address the action scenes.  The first movie had action that was frenetic and outlandish, as the dwarves seemed to bounce around with no chance of injury, while the goblins/orcs would fall at the slightest touch.  This round of action is similar, but ever-so-slightly more serious.  The same outlandish action takes place, with 2 scenes in particular being a marvel of choreography.  They are beautiful.  There is still very little risk of peril for our heroes, but there is SOME, which makes a much better experience than last time.

Other positives include the acting, especially from Luke Evans as Bard, and Ian McKellan as Gandalf.  Also surprisingly good were Lee Pace and Evangeline Lilly as an elven King and soldier, respectively.  The production design is again mind-boggling if you go for that sort of thing (I do).  The score was fine–I liked the callbacks to previous motifs, but there’s only one new piece that sticks out (for me anyway).  I think the script had a few too many cliches meant to sound profound.  Like “How do we know we can trust him?”  “We don’t.” or “What choice do we have?”  “None.”

The REAL discussion to have about the script though, is how radically it veers from the book.  Everyone knows it’s a short book and making three movies out of it would be tough.  Yet the first movie largely stayed true to the story.  In this one, however, there are HUGE divergences.  Stories change, characters are entirely invented, and screentime is given to events that before were only implied in the footnotes of Lord of the Rings.  Tolkien purists could very well be dismayed at all of the changes.  I, on the other hand, loved nearly all of them.  I am a Tolkien fan, but I am not a purist.  To me, seeing these story changes and new characters was basically like getting a brand new Tolkien adventure.  Instead of just waiting for the story I already knew to unfold, I was left wondering what would happen next.  This added element of surprise was a boon to me.  It kept me more actively involved because I didn’t already know everything to come.  I know some people will be upset.  I confess at one point they took such a hard left turn that I felt myself getting angry…but then the filmmakers totally redeemed themselves in the next scene, bringing things back to where they should be.  Hopefully over time the purists will appreciate what was done here.  I’m not saying they should prefer it to the book, of course.  Just that they should give it a chance.

To end on a positive note, I thought Smaug was flawless.  The design, the voice, the motion, and the CGI used to create him was all top-notch.  Not all of the CGI in the movie was top notch, but it was very clear that every possible effort went into making the dragon one of the best, if not THE best, animated creatures to ever fill a movie screen.  I should give special mention to Benedict Cumberbatch for giving Smaug such a great personality.  He exudes intelligence, arrogance, nihilism, greed, and even charm that I would have been fine with if the dwarves had just had a nice conversation with him.  That’s not exactly what happens in the movie though :)

I think anyone who enjoyed the first part will enjoy this more.  For anyone who was on the fence about the first part, this one improves nearly everything.  For anyone who didn’t like the first part…ordinarily I’d say this would be a waste of your time.  But I know a woman who actively disliked the Lord of the Rings movies and Hobbit part 1 and still enjoyed this one.  So who knows?  I do acknowledge that my score is filtered through being a Tolkien fan.  You might want to deduct a full point if you’re not a fantasy geek like  me.

Since I have fortunately seen all of the newly-announced Academy Award Best Picture nominees, and since many of them did not get their own review, I am going to provide a short, one-paragraph review for all nine nominees in alphabetical order.

12 Years A Slave:

Excellent acting and a powerful story.  I don’t know if it’s the best movie about slavery ever, which is one thing I’ve heard others say.  It shows how bad slavery is, of course…but so have plenty of other films.  My biggest complaint is that for a movie with a time frame in the title, you get no sense of how much time is actually passing.  Still, very good in any context.  7/10

American Hustle:

I suppose it’s “good” in an objective sense.  There’s nothing necessarily wrong with it, but it didn’t grab me.  The characters were well-acted, but made some odd choices.  A bigger downside for me was that none of them were very likable, except one…and nobody really got what they deserved.  Yes, that happens in real life all the time.  It just didn’t make for a satisfying movie for me in this case.  5/10

Captain Phillips:

I read this movie was somewhat controversial, and that the real Captain Phillips wasn’t as portrayed here at all.  That’s too bad, but I only evaluated this as a movie, and as such, it’s great.  Unique action, surprisingly emotional, and even informative about pirates and freight shipping.  I was impressed by nearly everything here.  8/10

Dallas Buyers Club:

No wonder this also got nominations for Lead Actor and Supporting Actor.  They’re great, and the physical transformation of Matthew McConaughey is astounding.  The plot is where this one kind of bogs down.  It meanders and you can’t really tell what it’s leading up to until it suddenly ends.  It’s interesting the whole time, and certainly an important topic (healthcare, sort of), but lacks a driving purpose.  6/10

Gravity:

A technical marvel.  It’s hard these days to find something you’ve never seen before, but Gravity did it.  What they pulled off is miraculous.  Luckily, the story is good too.  It’s very simple but maybe that’s part of the appeal.  Everyone can relate.  The rebirth metaphor is not very subtle, but it shouldn’t have to be.  A simple story told in a jaw-dropping presentation.  8/10

Her:

As quirky as you’d expect a Spike Jonze movie.  Actually, no, this is much more grounded than you’d expect.  It makes falling in love with a computer seem entirely plausible in the near future and touches on a lot of serious topics other than love.  Loss, grief, acceptance, technology.  I’m not sure I even got all the meaning that there was, but I appreciated that it was there.  7/10

Nebraska:

Kind of a road trip movie, but stripped down to the bone.  Black and white, with just a few characters, this feels more realistic than most of the other nominees–even the ones based on true stories.  It’s easy to get invested in the simple quest of a trip to Lincoln, Nebraska when you are genuinely rooting for the characters, as I was.  8/10

Philomena:

Maybe the least-seen movie on the list, Philomena is very British and very good.  I’m glad Judi Dench was nominated for this; she plays a character unlike her usual roles.  But the real star is the story, also based on truth.  The Catholic church plays a major role, so its impact might have gotten to me more because of my Catholic upbringing, but I think anyone would appreciate the dedication of a mother searching for her son.  7/10

The Wolf of Wall Street:

Showing just how much debauchery and how little morality greedy corporate executives can have, the movie borders on unbelievable…except that sadly, you know it’s probably true.  It’s not really blaming the awful people on screen; it’s more blaming us as a society that pretty much lets them do it with little repercussion.  Way too long though, with plenty of fun but pointless extra scenes.  7/10

Overall, a good bunch!  There was nothing this year I rated a 9 or a 10, but it takes something that speaks to me personally to hit those marks.  Of this group, I gave three an 8/10–  Captain Phillips, Gravity, and Nebraska.  They’re all very good, and I would encourage anyone to see them, or any of the other on this list (except American Hustle).  If I have to choose my personal favorite of them, I would pick Gravity.  Perhaps because I’m a sci-fi/action fan, or perhaps because it brought something new to my eyes.  No matter the reason, it’s the one of these that I would most like to watch again.  Note that this is just my personal pick, and not what I think the Academy will choose!

Here’s hoping 2014 will bring one or more of those elusive 9′s or 10′s to a theater near you!

Several times now, I’ve heard Edge of Tomorrow described as the action version of Groundhog Day.  While that might be a good way to describe the movie quickly to someone who hasn’t heard of it, it does a disservice to an original and exciting movie.  For me, Edge of Tomorrow is so far the best movie of the summer and it deserves more careful consideration than a comparison to a 20-year old comedy.

I am generally not a big fan of Tom Cruise, and he’s all over the advertising for this movie.  He always seems smug and too cool in his roles.  This time around, he’s nearly the opposite.  He’s kind of cowardly, extremely vulnerable, and somewhat unlikable, but for character reasons not celebrity TMZ reasons.  It’s a new kind of role for him, and he’s much more normal than his usual roles, so it’s easier to go along with him through the story.  Also, by starting from such a non heroic character, there is more room to grow and have a real character arc.  Simply, it’s the most I’ve liked Tom Cruise on screen in years, maybe ever.

His co-lead is Emily Blunt, who has been doing great work in smaller movies for years.  This is a change of pace here, and in fact, she is in what you might call the Tom Cruise role–the seasoned war veteran, the hero, the tough-as-nails soldier.  Surprisingly, she totally looks the part.  I wouldn’t want to mess with her.  She guides Tom (and the audience) through this experience of reliving the same day in a war against an alien force.

How that happens is best left to discover in the movie.  But it does happen, and it’s cool.  The day in question is a big beach invasion (think D-Day, but sci-fi) and Tom is way out of his league.  Every time he dies, he has to do it all again.  Except each time, he has a little more skill and a little more knowledge.  It sounds repetitive, but it’s not, and for 2 reasons.  First, the action is incredible.  Impressive aliens, cool battle suits, great camera placement…and all without being too shaky or jumbled that you can’t tell what’s happening.  It’s remarkably clear.  Second, each time through the battle focuses on something new.  Once an obstacle is overcome, it isn’t shown in the next iteration.  It’s on to the next challenge.  Eventually, the battle isn’t even the focus as the movie digs deeper into the story and looks beyond just a singular battles.

In addition to possibly the best action so far this year, the movie is funny.  It’s got a good sense of gallows humor that treats the repeated deaths almost like a child learning a sport.  He’s going to fail before he gets it right, and those failures are darn amusing.  Eventually, the humor fades as the stakes get raised and the story goes to places not stated in the trailer.  I haven’t read the novel this is based on (All you Need is Kill), but I loved not knowing what would come next.  It’s exhilarating, watching the main characters address each challenge and not knowing what might result.  It’s a weird Choose Your Own Adventure, where the wrong choice means a total restart.

This is the most fun I’ve had at the movies so far this summer.  It’s not perfect, of course.  My main problem is that the ending is a little bit too neat and Hollywood, although that’s too be expected.  It’s mostly disappointing here because of how original the rest of the movie was.  And with any story involving time travel, you have to just go with it because you can likely find plot holes if you really look for them.  But this movie is fun enough that you shouldn’t have time to think about that.

The post Edge of Tomorrow appeared first on Media Geeks.

There is never a shortage of vampire movies, especially these days.  Just in time for Halloween comes another attempt at bringing back the original vampire, Dracula himself.  Unlike many Dracula movies, this one actually succeeds at bringing something new and worthwhile to the table.

The first sign of something new is the setting, sometime in the 1400s, I believe.  Dracula is simply known as Vlad, a human who has been trained especially well at fighting and killing from growing up in the army.  So there is a lot of medieval armor and clothing and fighting; it looks more like Lord of the Rings than a vampire movie to start.

The second sign of originality is that Vlad is actually a family man.  He loves his wife, his child, and his princedom, and they love him.  He’s an exemplary ruler.  He just happens to have a problem with the local bully (the Turkish army that trained him).  While he is a great fighter, he is only one man and he cannot defend his country with only his small army.  He needs an advantage.

I think you see where this is going.  It feels fresh, though, this idea of Dracula as a reluctant, unwilling vampire.  The way the movie plays out, it’s very much like a superhero origin story.  Mystic powers, learning to use them, find out about (and how to overcome) his vulnerabilities, unexpected consequences, the whole nine yards.  Luke Evans plays Vlad and does a good job at earning sympathy.  I’ve liked him quite a bit in the Hobbit movies and Immortals.  The rest of the cast is largely unknown, although you might recognize the Turkish Sultan, Dominic Cooper, from a few things.

I particularly enjoyed a few of the visual flourishes.  Vlad turning into a flock of bats, and back, is done with more style here than I’ve ever seen.  They merge into his body, and he dissolves into them almost like smoke.  The use of silver, always a staple of vampire movies, is done very creatively here.  And when Vlad the Impaler lives up to his name, it’s gruesome and done in a very interesting way.  I don’t want to spoil that scene, but it made me wish the filmmakers had incorporated more like it.

The drawbacks (because there always are) were what you usually expect from a blockbuster-esque action movie.  A few plot holes, a few very convenient things happening, an utter disregard of actual time in a movie with a time limit as a major plot device.  Nothing egregious, but it certainly felt a bit sloppy at times and I felt there were some easy fixes to a few of the scenes that didn’t actually make a lot of sense.  The script probably just needed one more pass.  Hey, filmmakers!  I’m available for plot-hole script polishing!

The last thing to be noted is that Universal Studios has stated their intent to relaunch all of their classic monsters (Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, Mummy, and Creature from the Black Lagoon) and tie them together into a shared film universe, much like Marvel has done with their superheroes.  Dracula is the first of that effort.  To their credit, they do not mess around with references to other monsters in this movie.  It’s entirely self-contained, although it does end on a bit of a tease for a potential sequel, of course.  Of great interest to Universal (probably), is–will people be interested in this rebooted Monster Mash, culminating in an Avengers-style multi-monster movie?  For me, the answer is yes.  They got enough right with Dracula Untold that I’m hoping for more to come.

The post Dracula Untold appeared first on Media Geeks.

You know how when you love something, it’s rarely because it’s perfect?  If you really love something, you can still recognize its flaws and accept them as part of the whole.  That’s generally how I feel about the Wachowski siblings’ films.  Everyone loves The Matrix, of course, but I even like the sequels–part 3 moreso than part 2.  And I totally dug Speed Racer, and thought Cloud Atlas was one of the top 5 movies of 2012.  So you have a good sense of where I’m coming from.

 
Their latest sci-fi epic is called Jupiter Ascending, and like a lot of the Wachowskis’ efforts, it’s bold, original, thought-provoking, and noticeably flawed.  I’m willing to overlook the bad parts in favor of what they got right, but I know many audience members won’t feel that way.

The plot is sprawling and hints at a vast back story that we only get a little bit of.  This story is crying out to be a novel that has time to develop all the corners of the world.  Being crammed into a 2.5 hour movie makes it hard to fit in all the interesting details that have been created.  The result is a plot that feels a bit crowded and possibly rushed, but I didn’t mind.  I craved more.  I want a 3.5-hour directors’ cut, so I can get more information on everything going on.  There were a couple points where the story moved so quickly I got lost a little bit, but that’s ok.  I found my footing soon enough; I don’t need my hand held at every step.

The acting is one of the weak points, admittedly.  Mila Kunis has never been a big draw for me.  She’s adequate here, but not great.  Channing Tatum is someone I’ve become a big fan of lately.  He’s really charming in light-hearted movies like the Jump Streets, but this movie is more serious, so he doesn’t get to use his persona to full effect.  He plays a relatively stoic, driven mercenary who’s got a tumultuous past.  Oh, and he’s a Splice, a human genetically modified with animal DNA–in this case, a wolf, to make him a better hunter.  I wouldn’t say he’s miscast, but he does struggle a bit when he can’t rely on levity.  There are a few funny parts, but it’s really not a funny movie by design.

In fact, the Wachowskis have often had trouble with tone.  There are a couple times in this movie where there’s a scene that could be good on its own, but comes at such an odd place, or has such a different feel, that it just seems off.  There’s one in particular that I’m thinking of that could have come directly from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, or a Terry Gilliam movie.  This is intentional, as Terry Gilliam himself has a cameo in this scene, so it’s obviously an homage.  But it doesn’t really gel with the surrounding movie.  Would have been a perfect scene for the directors’ cut though.

The visual effects, aka the biggest reason to see the movie, are top-notch.  And I don’t just mean the quality of the effects, which is stellar, but the originality and visual ideas that are put on the screen.  There is some really unique stuff here, some immediately iconic shots, and several times I just wanted to watch in slow motion to appreciate what was going on.  The 3D is used very well here, if that matters to you.  It’s simply a gorgeous movie.

Overall, I really liked it and wanted more.  The story had nuance and depth beyond just good guys vs. bad guys.  It touched on business, politics, bureaucracy, science, ethics, and other real-world things in the most non real-world setting possible.  The stars are likable enough, and the supporting cast is very good.  The effects are just amazing.  I suspect the sometimes clunky dialogue and occasionally stiff acting will cause most people to write this one off.  I hope you don’t.  In a world that loves to criticize Hollywood for lack of originality, here’s something original.  It should be rewarded so we get more of these and fewer Transformers 4’s.  I will be seeing this one again in the theater, which is rare for me.

The post Jupiter Ascending appeared first on Media Geeks.

Superheroes have been dominating the box office for several years now.  Each new release is greeted with eager anticipation, and some of the biggest movies of all time have been in this latest wave of comic book adaptations.  The Avengers currently holds the record for biggest opening weekend over, and third biggest domestic box office of all time.  Superheroes have started becoming more prominent on the small screen as well, with TV shows on the major networks, not to mention cable and new media outlets like Netflix.  In short, it’s a superhero’s world out there.

And those heroes are coming to your world next!  For the weekend of May 1-3, Marvel Universe Live! is coming to the Forum in Inglewood, California.  Featuring an original story, audiences can see more than 25 of Marvel’s most popular characters brought to life in one epic show.  The show is intended to be fun for the entire family, so it’s a great show for kids who love superheroes but may not be old enough to see the movies.  Plus, it’s live!  The show will feature martial arts, aerial stunts, motocross, and pyrotechnics.

One of the aspects I’m personally most excited about is seeing the characters in their comic book costumes.  One thing the X-Men movies have never gotten right are the character’s costumes.  Not an issue for Marvel Universe Live!  You finally get to see Wolverine in the yellow Spandex suit that everyone knows from the pages of the comic books.  Plus Spider-Man, Captain America, the Hulk, Iron Man, and more! Not to mention villains including Loki, Red Skull, Rhino, and Green Goblin.

Marvel Universe Live has 6 upcoming shows with tickets available.  They are May 1st at 7:30, May 2nd at 11:00, 3:00, and 7:00, and May 3rd at 1:00 and 5:00.  Tickets are available online, over the phone, or in person.  Buy tickets, read about the characters, see behind-the-scenes videos, and get answers to all your other questions at www.marveluniverselive.com

See you there, True Believers!

Marvel Universe Live – Press Release

The post Real Live Superheroes?! appeared first on Media Geeks.

Universal Studios’ most successful franchise ever, the Fast & Furious movies, has gotten so successful it’s branching into other media.  The surest sign of a movie being a long-running hit is when it gets a theme park ride, and that has now happened.  Now open at Universal Studios Hollywood is Fast & Furious–Supercharged.  This is the grand finale to the famous Studio Tour attraction at the theme park.

Like most of Universal’s big attractions these days, Fast & Furious–Supercharged is a 3D motion simulator ride using a massive digital screen–in fact, the “world’s longest and most expansive 360-degree screen.”  The size really is impressive.  Much like their King Kong attraction, the screen is long enough for the entire tram to see the action, on both sides…and those Studio Tour trams are much longer than your average roller coaster train.  Which makes the motion simulation an impressive feat indeed–this isn’t just your seat shaking around, it’s the entire tram feeling like you’re speeding along city streets, getting rammed and shot at, and flying through the air.

The story of the ride is that Owen Shaw (Luke Evans), the villain from Fast & Furious 6, has been spotted in the area and is trying to track down an important witness that can help put him in jail.  Under the direction of Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson), the tour hides out in a garage where Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), and Dom (Vin Diesel) are holed up.  Shaw tracks us down, and we escape the garage under escort from Dom’s crew, racing down a freeway while being assaulted on all sides by Shaw and his gang.  There are assault vehicles, drone helicopters, grappling hooks, flame throwers, construction equipment and probably more that I missed.  There is SO MUCH going on that it’s both exhilarating and chaotic.  With such massive screens, on both sides of the tram, it’s physically impossible to see everything happening.  I do recommend getting a side seat if possible, so you at least will get a good view of half the action, with occasional glances over to see what else is going on.

I was sure that a motion simulator ride wouldn’t work with such a large vehicle, but I was proven wrong.  I absolutely felt like we were accelerating rapidly, speeding through the city, getting rammed from all sides, and even jumping off a bridge at one point.  The motion technology is a lot of fun.  The 3D technology is still a struggle to make work for such a large ride though because off the different angles that people can view it from.  Something in front of you may look good, but something on the other side will likely look a little out of focus, just because 3D is hard to get right in the simplest of circumstances, which this certainly is not.

One of my favorite parts of the ride, as a huge fan of the film franchise, is that it feels like a mini sequel or spin-off of the series.  It doesn’t have the whole cast (just the 5 mentioned above), but it was great to see some of my favorite characters reprising their roles.  It even led to some speculative debate about where this fits into the movies’ timeline.  I’m not quite sure it does, if I’m remembering correctly.  I think at the end of the 6th movie, Shaw was in no condition to be hunting down witnesses, and in the 7th movie, that hasn’t changed.  So it can’t fit between movies.  It could maybe fit in if you think of it as a sort of deleted scene from the middle of the 6th movie, but I don’t even know if that would work either.  I know I’m overthinking it.  It is probably best to just consider it a standalone adventure of these characters, that is outside of the movies.  Still, the action choreography is remarkable.  I would love for the filmed footage to be available to view on its own, without the ride.  I’d like to just enjoy it as an action scene on its own, but I doubt Universal would ever release it for viewing anywhere other than on the ride.

When it was over, I immediately wanted to ride again.  Like, IMMEDIATELY.  Both because it was fun and because I wanted to try to see the action snippets that I missed.  It might even be best to ride twice and just pay attention to one side at a time, instead of trying to look at both sides, as I was doing.  I will say that both sides have fun stuff on the screen, but the right side is maybe a little more exciting.  I’m not sure though–that’s why I wanted to ride it again!  The problem with this is that as the finale of the Studio Tour, you can’t ride it again without riding the whole tour again, which is at least a 45-minute ride, and most of the other parts of the Studio Tour are not ones that you are eager to repeat again right away.  It’s a curious strategic choice.  It seems like it might limit a lot of potential repeat riders, but I’m sure they have their reasons.

In any case, Fast & Furious–Supercharged is a lot of fun, especially for fans of the film franchise.  It’s a great addition to the theme park and to the series.  I just wish I could ride it again faster! But not necessarily more furious :)

The post Fast & Furious–Supercharged appeared first on Media Geeks.

The Premise

A deadly virus is spreading and only my team of doctors can stop it. Our team plummets deep underground to our top-secret military lab. There, our mentor left us the clues to create the antidote and save the world, providing we don’t contaminate the lab, and set off the self-destructing quarantine procedure giving us only an hour to save our lives, and the world…

The Puzzles

The Virus has roughly 22 puzzles, all packed into one laboratory set with many bells and whistles, including the virtual reality descent to our lab, which was such a great way to set up our scenario and begin the immersion. My 6-person team of scientists (plus Bob, our guard), fit nicely in the space and everyone always had something to do to move our progress along. The space was used brilliantly; almost every surface was utilized. And I loved that the puzzles kept with the laboratory theme – no puzzle seemed random.

Other escape rooms I’ve done tend to be very linear. One puzzle will open one lock and can then be disregarded. The Virus was not that simple. Pieces of the larger picture were found within smaller puzzles, which then combined into another puzzle, while we had to keep yet another puzzle in mind. Certain off-the-cuff remarks from Bob (I’ll talk more about him shortly) were called back later in the experience, dovetailing nicely into the conclusion, which was very much a team effort.

Bob is one of the creators of The Virus and acted as our guard for the duration of the room, giving hints when asked, and suggestions when we were close to being on the right track. Bob is able to answer any and all questions thrown his way, however if you’re playing to stay “alive,” the limit is 4. When we first arrived, “Creator Bob” gave us the rundown of the room and rules, got our waivers signed, and locked up our belongings. A few seconds later, “Guard Bob” hurried over, addressing us all as doctors, and led us to our task. His enthusiasm and commitment to character were incredibly fun and infectious (see what I did there?), and elevated the experience that much more. He was magic!

The Point

Our Virus Team

I won’t beat around the bush: This is a difficult room. The maximum number of people is 8 and we had 6, all of which were needed. We definitely needed Bob’s help for several things, but we kept it to under 4 questions so we could potentially stay “alive.” There was a slight blip in the game when a folder was misplaced, but Bob hurried over to rectify the situation. We ran out of time on the last puzzle, but when I asked Bob if we could finish, he let us – we finished just a minute over our 60-minute time limit. Considering there was a mistake within the room, Bob considered us “winners” and handed out a tasty antidote to celebrate.

In Get the F Out’s new space downtown, they plan to build two more rooms and the themes sound amazing. I had such a fun overall experience that I can’t wait until the other two rooms are built and I can go try them out. If you’ve done several escape rooms and are ready for the next level, please check this place out! And if you’re not used to escape rooms, get the maximum number of people together and check this place out!

The Virus is open Thursday-Sunday. Tickets are $36/person and very much worth it.

Book Here: http://www.getthefoutroom.com/

The post Get the F Out: The Virus Escape Room appeared first on Media Geeks.