"Avengers: Infinity War" Review by Tim Hellman

'AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR': Four Stars (Out of Five)

The third installment (not counting 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR') in the blockbuster superhero franchise, based on the Marvel Comics' characters. This one has the Avengers teaming up with the Guardians of the Galaxy, to stop Thanos from collecting all of the Infinity Stones so he can bend reality to his will. The movie was directed by Anthony and Joe Russo (who also both co-directed 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER' and 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR'), and it was scripted by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely (who also both co-wrote all of the 'CAPTAIN AMERICA' movies). It stars Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Chadwick Boseman, Tom Holland, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Ruffalo, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan and the voices of Josh Brolin, Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel. It's received mostly positive reviews from critics, and it's expected to break all kinds of records at the Box Office of course. The movie is a pretty epic action flick, but it's a little light on actual character development and meaningful story.

The story begins two years after the end of 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR', and the Avengers are still not on speaking terms. Thanos (Brolin) has come to earth to collect the last of the Infinity Stones, which will allow him to form a gauntlet that can bend reality to his will. Hulk (Ruffalo) has arrived just before him, to warn Tony (Downey Jr.) about his plans. At the same time Thor (Hemsworth) meets the Guardians of the Galaxy, in space, and the Avengers must later team-up with them in order to stop Thanos, and save the universe.

The film definitely has a great epic feel to it, and look, and the action scenes are spectacular. There's way too many characters in the movie though, and each one has their own little story; which when added all together makes the whole film feel kind of pointless and empty. I'm sure nerd comic book lovers will still love it, and on a purely superficial/technical level it's quite a film-going experience. In the end though, it's all style over substance, and it's kind of like movie junk food with no real value. It is better than 'JUSTIC LEAGUE' at least though.

"Captain America: Civil War" Review by Tim Hellman

'CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR': Five Stars (Out of Five)

The third installment in Marvel Studios' 'CAPTAIN AMERIA' film franchise. The sequel also features many other superhero characters from the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' (especially the 'AVENGERS' films), and the story deals with Captain America taking on Iron Man; in order to protect his friend Bucky Barnes. The movie stars Chris Evans (reprising the title role) and it costars Robert Downey Jr. (as Iron Man), Sebastian Stan (as Bucky, AKA The Winter Soldier), Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Chadwick Boseman, Daniel Bruhl, Scarlett Johansson, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Olsen, Jeremy Renner, Emily Van Camp, William Hurt, Paul Rudd, Tom Holland, Frank Grillo, Marisa Tomei and Martin Freeman. The film also introduces the classic comic book characters Spider-Man and Black Panther (Holland and Boseman), in their Marvel Cinematic Universe feature film debuts. Anthony and Joe Russo returned to direct the movie (they also helmed 'CAPTAIN AMERICA: WINTER SOLDIER') and Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely returned to write the script (they also wrote 'WINTER SOLDIER' and co-wrote 'THOR: THE DARK WORLD'). It's received rave reviews from critics and fans alike, and it's (of course) a huge hit at the Box Office. I loved it as well.

Due to the large number of civilian deaths, as a result of The Avengers' battles with various super-villains (over the years), the United Nations wants to form an international governing body, to control the superheroes' actions. Captain America (Evans) is against it, since he thinks they have better judgment than corrupt government officials, whereas Iron Man (Downey Jr.) supports the supervision (due to guilt over creating Ultron, and other tragedies he's responsible for). Other Avengers divide in the conflict, forming two different factions. At the same time Bucky Barnes (Stan) is framed for a bombing in Vienna (which kills a Wakanda King). Captain America wants to protect his friend, while government officials want to kill him. A civil war between the superheroes erupts.

This film gets everything right that 'BATMAN V SUPERMAN' did (one of my other favorite movies this year); it's very dark, dramatic and full of rich character development (all things 'AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON' got wrong). The plot is involving and the action actually serves the story; rather than vice versa! The action scenes are also really cleverly done, and exciting; something increasingly hard to pull off, in modern blockbusters. Downey Jr. actually gives a really good performance again (and he doesn't deliver any horrible jokes, for a change). It's also interesting to see his character as the antagonist; I know he was more of a villain in the comic book, but I think it was smarter for the filmmakers to make the drama (in the film) more nuanced. The movie's politics are also timely and complex. It's just a grade A film all around; I think it's my second favorite Marvel Studios film (after 'GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY'). It's one flaw is that they got Spider-Man wrong though; they made some major changes to the source material, that any fan should be pissed about. I think his character is the worst of the three movie adaptations (and he deserves his own fucking movie to debut in, he's not second banana to 'THE AVENGERS')! Overall the film is fantastic though.

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" Review - Written by Tim Hellman

'AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Sequel to the 2012 blockbuster superhero flick 'THE AVENGERS'; and the 11th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Joss Whedon returned to write and direct this installment (as he did the first) and most of the cast reprises their roles; including Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Renner, Samuel L. Jackson, Paul Bettany and Cobie Smulders. Don Cheadle, Anthony Mackie, Idris Elba, Hayley Atwell and others also reprise their parts from other Marvel films; while James Spader, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen and Linda Cardellini join the cast. This time around the mighty superhero team must battle an artificial intelligence unit, created by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, that's bent on revenge; against all of humanity. I found the film to be entertaining, and it's sure to satisfy most comic book fans, but it's definitely a mixed bag.

The story revolves around an A.I. named Ultron (Spader), who comes to life as part of Tony Stark's (Downey Jr.) defense program. Ultron is bent on destroying humanity, instead of protecting it, and enlists the help of two genetically altered twins (Taylor-Johnson and Olsen). He also builds an army of deadly robots, to serve as his army. It's up to the Avengers to stop Ultron and once again save the world.

The movie is all over the place; there's a shitload of characters and most of them are pretty underdeveloped. We do get to learn more about Hawkeye (Renner) and Black Widow (Johansson), the two Avengers who haven't had their own movies yet, but the rest of the principal players don't have engaging story lines. Thor (Hemsworth) serves as great comic relief; but Stark's one-liners are getting very tired and poorly written. There's also some pretty badly done melodrama (throughout the movie) and an oddly placed romance between Hulk (Ruffalo) and Black Widow (What happened to Betty Ross?!). It's also never explained why Tony Stark came out of retirement and has several suits of armor again (after destroying them all in 'IRON MAN 3'). The action scenes go on for way too long (and are pretty reminiscent of 'MAN OF STEEL', or a Michael Bay 'TRANSFORMERS' film). It does have plenty of good moments too, though, and most die-hard fans will still love it; for all the geeky comic shit it does stay true to. It's just not the most well developed, or balanced, movie (as a result). The first film and some other installments, in the Marvel Universe, are better; but this film is definitely still an entertaining and mostly satisfying addition!

Anthony T's #TBT: Scott Pilgrim vs the World

This week on Anthony T’s #TBT is one of my favorite Edgar Wright films. He’s a director most known for films like “Shawn of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”. But back in 2010, he directed a great film that not many people saw as it only went on to make 31.5 million dollars at the box office. I’m talking about “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”. Here’s my review of the film from back in August 2010.

Repost from 8/23/2010 with changes.

To think that a director is great, he needs at least three films that are great or memorable in either a serious manner or a geeky manor. This leads me to the film’s director Edgar Wright. His last two films were just great and memorable to the point that I recently upgraded them to Blu-Ray. But what makes someone great is that you take away the elements that made the previous films work and direct something outside your comfort zone. This was the case here as Wright’s frequent collaborators Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are nowhere to be found here. Instead, he has a graphic novel and Michael Cera to work with.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is based on the graphic novel series by Bryan Lee O’ Malley. Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a 22-year-old who is jobless and plays bass for a garage band known as Sex Bob-omb. He has just met Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the girl of dreams. It sounds easy, but there’s a catch. He finds out that his new girlfriend that has baggage. Her exes formed a nefarious league to control her love life and are willing to do anything to eliminate Scott as a suitor. This range from a skateboarder turned actor, a vegan rock star to identical twins. In order to achieve true love, he must vanquish the league of exes before it’s game over. This film also features appearances by Chris Evans, Anna Kendrick, Brandon Routh and Jason Schwartzman.

With the exception of “Inception” and “The Girl who Played with Fire, this summer has been a letdown for me, as there hasn’t been that film that made me want to see it again. There hasn’t been that great popcorn flick this summer, where you’re are walking out of the theater where you feel like you had a fun time. A good example would be “District 9” and “Star Trek” from last summer where it made you want to rush to see the film again, until now.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is film that is destined for cult status. The major thing going into this film was if Edgar Wright’s is truly a very talented writer/director or was it was it the fact that he needs his frequent collaborators Simon Pegg and Nick Frost to make his films very entertaining.
Thankfully, this film definitely solidifies him as a very talented writer/director, as Wright has really come a long way from “Shawn of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”.

One of the things that he does is to make the film’s shots stand out. I liked how, he goes into video game mode with the split screens and widescreen to some of the film’s most crucial elements. This brought back the heydays of “The Legend of Zelda”, “Street Fighter” and “Mortal Kombat”. It’s very creative and takes a lot of chances. I wished some of the video games of the nineties would have more exciting action instead being good for its cheesiness. Also, I loved the way that Wright opens up the film with the Universal logo in 8 bit graphics. He then cuts to the shot of the band in the film playing as the camera moves away from them and cuts to the title cards with a grindhouse looking background to give the film its punk rock feel to it. That sequence perfectly helps set the tone for this film, as this film felt like a rock concert. Wright also does a very good job handling the performances and making them comic bookish to the point where it fits the tone of the film. He does a great job handling Michael Cera performance, as he come off as geeky and not annoying which the character could’ve been but wasn’t.

The screenplay written by Wright and Michael Bacall does a very good job making the story and material very adaptable for the big screen. The big complaint of some comic films is the fact the feel of the story isn’t comic bookish. Not only does the story feel comic bookish, it also felt video gameish with some of the sequences and the way they were written. Another thing that I like about the screenplay was the fact it’s given a chance to develop it characters. Sometimes films like this just totally ignores these aspects, but doesn’t here. There are some parts where the action is slow, but it serves as it develops some of the main characters and the main relationship. This helped me get invested with the characters, which makes it a better and fun film to enjoy.

I don’t know with the exception of maybe Michael Gondry, if anyone could make this material very energetic and visually compelling like Wright did here. If this film was done by anyone else, then it would have probably ended up like a video game movie from the nineties and it would have been in the annoying with the 3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! format too, even though this film felt like a 3D movie without the glasses. Finally, a summer popcorn film that made me walk out of the theater feeling very satisfied. “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is very visually captivating film and is perfect summer escapism at the local multiplex.

Review Rating: Five Stars

"Snowpiercer" Review - Written by Jim Herling

Sometimes all a movie needs to keep it going is a good idea. The idea behind Snowpiercer is more than good enough to keep it chugging down the track (fair warning: I might not be able to keep myself from filling this review with bad train metaphors...). This 2013 film directed by Joon-ho Bong and written by Bong, Kelly Masterson and a few others that has finally been released has one of the most interesting premises I've seen in awhile.

Sometime in the not so distant future an attempt is made to stave off the dangerous effects of global warming by releasing a chemical into the atmosphere that is meant to quite literally cool the whole Earth off. The plan backfires however as the chemical works too well and ushers in a new ice age, making the world too inhospitable for life to survive anyway. The survivors of mankind are herded onto a train that circles the world indefinitely, keeping them warm and alive and safe.

That's one hell of a movie idea there, right? Just wait, it gets even more interesting.

On the train humanity is divided into two groups: the rich and important... and everybody else. The rich and important live in the front section of the train, partying and eating and drinking like kings and generally living it up. The rest of the people live in the rear of the train, condemned to the kind of life that makes today's homeless look like they're living on easy street. They're fed nothing but chemically-created nutrient bars. They have little to no privacy due to overcrowding. Their kids are even sometimes taken from them for mysterious purposes. Anyone who dares to speak out against this is punished. Brutally.

And that's where our heroes come in.

Chris Evans and John Hurt play Curtis and his mentor Gilliam, respectively. They're the ostensible leaders of the people in the rear of the train, and with the help of Curtis' sidekick Edgar (Jamie Bell) and Namgoong and his daughter Yona (Kang-ho Song and Ah-sung Ko) they put together a rebellion that seriously derails (sorry, couldn't help it) the plans of the train's creator and leader Wilford, played by Ed Harris, who is almost worshipped as a god by the people in the front of the train, and his main representative Mason, played by Tilda Swinton.

So we're clear that the movie has an interesting idea, but what about everything else? The acting, as you'd expect from most of the principles in the cast list, is pretty superb, and Chris Evans is a captivating lead. His performance as Curtis is intense. I just have two complaints in the acting department: one is that Hurt and Harris don't share any screen time, which is disappointing; the other is that Swinton's character is one of the most annoying I've ever seen, and while that might be the fault of the writing or directing, Swinton plays her so absurdly that there's no menace, and as she pretty much the primary antagonist for most of the film, that's a problem. As for the rest of the writing, it's just fine, nothing special to report either way. Likewise the directing; for the most part it was solid but there were a few points where directorial decisions left me shaking my head.

As the film reaches the end of the line (again, sorry) it goes off track a little (and again!). It starts throwing twists at you left and right. There were as many as five twists by my count; some, like the one involving the early days of the train and Curtis and Edgar's relationship, are brilliant and add quite a bit to everything. Others, like the ambivalent ending, leave a lot to be desired. Still, Snowpiercer is a decent enough movie with an idea great Egmont to earn it three out of five stars.