Who Should Watch "Elysium"

Elysium - Movie Review

In the year 2154 the rich live on Elysium, a structure that is pretty much a revolving paradise (see Halo video game for a more current reference on what it is) orbiting Earth, while the rest of the world lives on Earth. Meaning that Earth has gone completely dystopian. When ex con Max, played by Matt Damon, assimilates himself into being a helpful member of a dystopian society he soon becomes stricken with an affliction that will kill him in 5 days. The only way to cure him is by using the advance medical technology on Elysium that can pretty much cure or fix any medical problem no matter how absurd. However in order to do so, he must strike a deal with this story's version of a "coyote" (someone who helps illegal immigrants cross borders) by completing a job that escalate the stakes of the story into new territory.

That new territory being whatever was mentioned in the first 30 minutes will not matter for the rest of the ride.

In the Shadow of District 9

Neil Blomkamp's feature film debut, District 9, is a science fiction marvel. It walks the fine line between hard science fiction (dealing with social commentary) and soft science fiction (pure unapologetic sci-fi explosive fun). The films sets us up in a pseudo-documentary style world that has experienced an alien encounter for several years in a country that is usually not associated with alien invasion films. Right from the start it gives the viewers something to think about. It brings up social commentary in an interesting way that makes us think about ourselves as human being and how apartheid can also be a result of how we would treat outsiders from another galaxy. The film quickly takes a massive turn of events when our guide, Wikus (wonderfully played by Sharlto Copley) finds himself being transformed into an alien. This causes a massive chain of events that quickly moves away from the documentary style filmmaking into actual cinematic filmmaking. The transition was jarring at first but when it picks up momentum it picks up and doesn't let the viewer go. With a great character arc from Wikus, a thought provoking documentary style opening, and a blockbuster rated R action extravaganza final: District 9 became one of the best original (if you ignore the fact it was adapted from a short Blomkamp previously did) sci-fi story in years. A genuine sci-fi story that reflects on who we are instead of just having cool special effects and action to tell a story. It became a mega hit and would solidify Blomkamp as a director to put on watch for his next film. And when it finally arrives, will it deliver the same amount of awe as his first round in the rodeo? No.

Elysium is a failure on so many levels

Trailers are meant to promote a film. They can also be heavily misleading. A trailer for James Gunn's Super makes it seem like a quirky comedy about an average guy who wants to become a superhero. What it really is about is a dark comedy about a religious man who becomes a superhero because god chose him to save the woman who left him for a drug dealer with the help of a borderline sadistic psychopathic comic book fan girl. A trailer for Bong Joon-Ho's film The Host promotes itself as a standard exercise of a Korean horror film. What it is really about is a dysfunctional family who is dealing with a crisis while at the same time a horrifying situation (such as a giant fish monster and a villainous American Government) brings them together to try and resolve their issues. Kind of like J.J. Abrams' Super 8 (a movie I love) only a little bit more executed and the adults are the stars. the same goes for Blomkamp's Elysium. What sets itself up as an examination on social class status as well as class warfare immediately becomes a cliche science fiction film about destiny and blowing shit up.

Maybe its because Blomkamp establishes himself as someone who can do hard hitting sci-fi stories that can entertain people that I view this movie as a failure, because this movie could've been made by anybody else and would've been better. And by better I mean you take a different director, same exact story, maybe a different leading man but I'll get to that later, and you would have an acceptable sci-fi action film. The problem is, because Blomkamp's name is on it, you're expecting something hard hitting in terms of commentary or subtext. It promotes itself as being on par with the hard hitting sci-fi that was District 9 with its constant displays of the rich live in space and everyone else lives on Earth. Class warfare! But that is only barely touched upon. What we got instead is a selfish guy who gets brutally harassed for the sake of letting the audience know this guy's life sucks who finds himself contracting radiation poisoning and needs to get to Elysium to heal himself. Yeah, that's the story. Want to know what the subplots are? The Secretary of Defense, Jessica Delacourt (played by Jodie Foster) wants to overthrow the president of Elysium and decides to stage a coup. Frey Santiago (Alice Braga) the childhood friend and crush of Matt Damon's character has a daughter who is dying of leukemia. Those two stories are connected with Damon's storyline but in really disjointed or unnecessary ways. 

Like District 9 the film starts as one thing then transitions to another. The thing with Elysium is that it transitions to way too many films in one movie. It starts out as a movie talking about destiny to children (something that is better suited for soft sci-fi and fantasy) then goes to a story about abuse of the lower class then turns into a heist movie then turns into a man on the run movie then turns into a space action movie then finishes as a save the world movie. While most movies are structured that way the abruptness and the escalation of events was just way too much going on. There was literally one portion of the movie that in my opinion would've served better for the plot. That is the first time the film shows undocumented ships trying to enter Elysium illegally with some of them being shot down with one making it. In that surviving ship was a mother with her paraplegic child that she puts into one of the Elysium medical pods and heals her daughter. Seriously, that entire segment was more emotional and more powerful than the entire movie. That one segment could've been the entire movie. I mean, Blomkamp already has set up another mother with a child who is sick and that mother is the leading lady of this picture. Frey Santiago's story could've easily been swapped with that of the woman with a paraplegic daughter and it would make more sense. In fact, I don't think the Elysium coup storyline or the Matt Damon storyline were necessary. And those two story lines were pretty much the story of the movie. Meaning I didn't care about any of them. I didn't even care about Alice Braga's storyline because she doesn't make an attempt to bring her daughter to Elysium but is rather conveniently kidnapped by the film's villain and winds up on Elysium.

Seriously, there is nothing likable about these characters. You don't feel for them. Any of them. Their motivations are pretty not well thought out. Their actions are just standard. None of their characters full developed. The villains are pretty much cartoon characters who are evil for the sake of being evil. Although Jodie Foster's character has some semblance of being more than a cartoon villain she still winds up being a cliche villain. But District 9's Sharlto Copley's character Kruger is the epitome of cartoon villain. He is both the best part and the worst part of the movie. Worst part being that he really is a standard cartoon villain with the best part being Copley clearly doesn't give a shit and plays him as the over the top cartoon villain that was given to him, meaning he played it flawlessly. His lines were so generic and his actions were completely random. It could even be argued that he is the one with the most random character change from being an obedient psychopath to becoming a world dominating psychopath. That's some weird abrupt character development. Now as for the heroes, they're standard but with no added characterization.

If there is one thing that might have made the movie a little bit better, and by a little I mean I would've respected the casting choice if it was  done, I would've preferred a hispanic actor in Matt Damon's role. I'm suppose to believe that Matt Damon's character grew up knowing spanish since he was a kid yet in his adult years it sounds like he just learned spanish three days before shooting. The cast on Earth was dominantly hispanic and the hero of this story was a white guy who barely speaks spanish. Now some can make the argument of Khan in Star Trek Into Darkness being played by a white british actor instead of a latin one like the original so why can't Matt Damon have this role? Well for starters, both the new and original casting for Khan is wrong in having two ethnicities try to pass as Arab. And yes, Matt Damon gives a good performance, but think of how many hispanic actors could've played that role. Especially since the film was made in Mexico. I would say something about the immigration commentary that was merely just a small subtext in this film, but I've typed too much already and this film didn't bother to delve into immigration too much either.

Verdict: A good action film if Neil Blomkamp's name wasn't attached to it

Critical Score: 5.5/10 - This movie would've been better if Neil Blomkamp or Matt Damon were anywhere near this movie and just promoted as a dumb action movie.

Who should watch "Elysium"

This is a good action movie. And that's what it is. A good dumb action movie with sci-fi elements. If it had been promoted as such instead of a film that portrays itself as having some form of substance as a true Hard Sci-Fi film then fans of those elements of District 9 should stay away from this movie. However if you are a fan of the explosive action in District 9 then this film is for you because that's all its about. I will say that people should support this movie due to it being an original idea in Hollywood instead of the usual schtick. I'll support it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. 

Man of Steel Sequel: The World's Finest Announced - The Future of the DC Film Universe

The First Step of a new Cinematic Universe

San Diego Comic Con. Location: Hall H, the heart of the convention. There at the end of the Warner Bros./Legendary Pictures Panel, Man of Steel director Zack Snyder made a surprise appearance to announce the next installment of the new Superman franchise. The way he did it however was by having one of the actors from Man of Steel read an excerpt from a graphic novel that will give a hint as to what the next film will be:

"I want you to remember Clark, in all the years to come. In all your private moments. In all the years to come, my hand at your throat. I want you to remember, the one man who beat you."

And with that, the above logo came up on the big screen meaning only one thing: Batman will be in the next Superman movie. A World's Finest movie is finally in development. It is also the first public announcement of a Superman/Batman movie ever. For a detailed account of my hopes and thoughts on the newly announced film click on the link here to my comics blog:

Thoughts on the newly announced "World's Finest" film

It is rather interesting though that they decided to have this be their next film. Many speculated that this new Superman Franchise would follow suit with Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy by having a sequel where Superman fights his arch-nemesis, then a third sequel where he fights his most dangerous adversary, which would then maybe lead to a Justice League film. While I still believe that Superman's nemesis, Lex Luthor, will make an appearance in the sequel it is really intriguing that they decide to add Batman into the mix. While a friend of mine joked around that the next movie should have Batman and I was strongly against that notion, I can now look at this and think this might actually be a good idea.

Why this is the right direction

No one can repeat what Marvel did. Their plan to create a shared universe by taking a risk with Iron Man, a character not that many people know about, and using it as a springboard to get their other properties made was undeniably genius. Although I am a DC fan I have to admit that seeing the end credits scene of Iron Man with the announcement of "the Avengers Initiative" got me excited. Not as excited as I am about the Superman/Batman film. That has been something I've been hoping for for a very long time. And I'm glad that this is how they plan on doing it. Or I hope my assumptions of what they're doing are right.

While it would be nice to have individual DC superhero movies that build up to a Justice League film, that will just feel like a repeat of what Marvel did. If DC wants to establish their universe, they can't do the exact same thing that Marvel did. Already you have Marvel fanboys calling foul or normal average joes thinking the same method is a mere rip off. While as a developing filmmaker myself and being a DC fan, I have my own theories of how to properly establish a DC Film Universe that doesn't look like a Marvel copycat. However, this direction they're going for intrigues me. Now I'm only making assumptions about what might happen after the World's Finest film (I'm going to be calling the Superman/Batman film that until they actually give it a title) but I'm hoping that the next film to follow in this new series involves Wonder Woman. 

Why so? Well for one if they're going to continue in the trend of merging logos then the above image could help promote the third film. Also if you're going to have a second film that has Superman and Batman then why not have Wonder Woman thrown into the mix for the third film? Get it, 2 for a 2nd and 3 for a 3rd. Get it? Okay that was corny. But really in all seriousness and I hope the next film is a success, with a Trinity (the name given to Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman team ups) film happens next. These three films can then be called the DC Trinity Trilogy. Imagine the blu ray box sets for that. 

This route of having a new Superhero appear in each film instead of doing a stand alone film is very different from Marvel. In fact, this approach seems like a much more logical chain effect as to why these people would not necessarily be alone. If my guess is right and that Batman's public appearance is a reaction to Superman, then an Amazon Princess appearing will not go unnoticed by those two. I'm not saying that is how the rest of the series should go. In fact I think that method should only be applied to the big three: Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman. If that is the case and this DC Trinity Trilogy happens then it really would pave the way for a Justice League film. 

If that is so, then the Justice League film could double as a way of showing the escalation of the number of superheroes being created in this universe as well as the origin story of how they all meet. The Justice League can then turn into its own stand alone franchise that can operate without the prior DC Trinity Trilogy and become something like the X-Men films dealing with the formation of the team as well as new members. Then, if this happens, then they can pull a "reverse Avengers." Do spin-off standalone films of what the team members do when they're not operating with the League. They don't even have to be solo adventures of heroes but involve 2 or 3 members of the League for one spin-off film. It can even open the doors to a Suicide Squad film or a Secret Society film franchise. 

I'm speaking of this as if this is the plan that Warner Bros. has with their film series, but all out honesty this is just wishful thinking. I can only hope that this is how it all goes down. Because if it is, I will have a huge respect for them. At first I was under the impression that they're trying to repeat Marvel. And while this is kind of like what Marvel is doing, its different enough where it feels like a fresh approach of building a universe. I hope this is how it goes down. I really hope so.

Who Should Watch "PACIFIC RIM"

Pacific Rim - Movie Review

When gigantic monsters called "Kaiju" begin emerging from a dimensional portal in the Pacific Ocean, the world funnels its resources into creating gigantic robots called "Jaegers" to combat them. Over the years however, the Kaiju have evolved to combat the Jaegers more efficiently leading the world governments to try and find other ways to defending against the towering beasts. As the rate of Kaiju appearing from the portal increases, with extinction eminent, the last remaining Jaeger pilots from all over the world create one last stand to close the portal and stop the Kaiju once and for all.

Go big or go extinct!

Every Nerd/Otaku's Dream

There is something powerful about Pacific Rim. It holds two staples of Japanese Pop Culture in one film: giant mechs versus giant monsters. Its Gundam vs. Godzilla. An almost gritty semi-realistic but not too much take on Ultraman. It is a child's fantasy. Robots vs. Monsters. The closest otakus will get to an Evangelion live-action movie. It is also an "original" idea. By original however that means, its not directly based on something that already exists. This is a film that is inspired by all those aspects of Japanese anime and pop culture while at the same time finding a way to be new in a very simplistic format. It is a marvel to have a blockbuster that isn't based on an existing property and should definitely be a movie you should see on the big screen. And with the acclaimed Mexican director Guillermo Del Toro at the helm, what more could you ask for?

Then why do I not feel too amazed or dazzled?

I had a lot of expectations for Pacific Rim. With Summer 2013 pumping out rather dull or nerd raging movies (Iron Man 3, Into Darkness, Man of Steel) my hopes for a good summer blockbuster all looked towards Pacific Rim. When first trailer premiered, I was a little underwhelmed. While I love the robot designs, for some reason the monsters shown in the trailer were a let down. There was something about the kaiju, a term that any Godzilla fan should be familiar with, that didn't really hit me in any particular way. This is however about the kaiju that was shown in the first trailer, which were pretty hidden. Yet from the obscured nature shown in the trailer, the monsters didn't do anything for me. They didn't move me or bring back happy memories of my favorite Godzilla films or Ultraman episodes. Okay, it did bring back memories, but rather memories on how I think it SHOULD be done rather than oh that reminds me why I love this. However as I stated before, the robots got me hooked. Mainly because there was something realistic (although the concept is pretty far-fetched) about the robot's design. So I counted myself in. It wouldn't be until the WonderCon Trailer, that Warner Bros. courteously put online, totally convinced me that I needed to see the film. The more clear shots of the kaiju gave me an idea of what they are and was a little bit more impressed with their designs when given a clear glimpse. And so when July 12 came rolling in, my anticipation to be wowed was overwhelmingly high. Sadly however, it didn't quite wow me.

Don't get me wrong. I know what type of movie this is. I'm very well aware that if you're going to see this movie, you're seeing it for "Giant F***ing Robots fighting Giant F***ing Monsters!" I'm also aware that Guillermo drew a lot of inspiration from anime and various kaiju films. I'm also aware that the acting in this film should not be expected to be the most amazing acting in existence. And I'm very well aware that for something like this the characters won't be well rounded and the story will be extremely simplistic. I went in fully prepared to expect all those things, because I know that's what to expect. Which should be a warning to anyone expecting a complex plot with complex characters, this is not that type of movie. It delivers in what it sells: "Giant F***ing Robots fighting Giant F***ing Monsters!" And there really is nothing else you could really ask for. Sure there is a little sub plot involving where the kaiju come from which turns this Robots vs Monsters film into an alien invasion film...spoiler? Nah, if you can't figure it out from the trailers then I apologize for spoiling that bit. But really, that's the only "twist" this film has and its not a jaw dropping one. So if I'm not criticizing it for lack of strong characters and complex plot, then what is it that's not amazing me? Frankly if someone is well aware of what they're getting and get exactly what they expected, shouldn't that someone be satisfied with what they got?

Here's the answer: It's a Personal Bias/Expectation

I have a huge respect for Guillermo Del Toro. A huge respect. I first learned about him after watching Hellboy when I was in middle school. After that I started hunting down other films he made as well as anticipating anything that would come later. Cronos is one of my favorite "vampire" horror films due to Del Toro's unique take on the genre. Pan's Labyrinth and both Hellboy films are up there as my top fantasy movies. While he may be hitting my heartstrings in the right places due to his choices of genres it is how he makes films that gives me a lot of respect for him. Due to never having a gigantic budget, he always finds a way to create the things he wants to with the constraints that he's given. This usually results in creativity flowing in a spectrum of ways that really make for great films. His Hellboy films reminded me of George Lucas's constraints in the making of the original Star Wars. Del Toro though had a much more optimistic way of viewing things rather than the emotional train wreck that Lucas was emoting at the time. It could be that the times had change and old filming techniques are becoming less and less a necessity. But for Del Toro, old school techniques are his tools in crafting a film. What I'm saying is: for someone that I have often associated with using creature suits instead of going full blown CGI, I was expecting him to do the same even if he had the gigantic budget that he had. In other words, I was expecting guys in suits rather than CGI.

I always thought that would be the direction he would've taken. I'd think that he could see the difference a man and a suit could make against a CGI creature. Ex. Roland Emmerich's Godzilla vs. Godzilla 2000. I understand that the guys in suit thing may be too corny for an American Audience, but for a kaiju audience it would've (in my opinion) have been a welcoming sight. Seeing our technology aiding and enhancing an old form of filmmaking would've been something to marvel at. If anyone could've pulled it off right, it would've been Guillermo Del Toro. Unfortunately for me, that's not what I got. Instead I got CGI robots fighting CGI monsters. While there was nothing wrong with that, and the effects in the film were spectacular, there was a magic to suit acting that made the kaiju genre watchable. I may be alone in this camp, but that is how I feel about this film.

This is by no means a bad film. It did everything it was suppose to do, and when it did it did it right. I just wished that it was made differently. If there is one legitimate critique I would have to give to the film is that I didn't like how all the battles between the jaegers and kaiju were in stormy nights or underwater. This takes away from the details and sometimes you really have to strain in order to take the details in. There are two monster battles that take place in the daytime, but they are pretty brief.

Verdict: Delivers on what it promises and nothing more

Critical Score: 8.5 - The best summer blockbuster movie out right now

Personal Score: 7.5 - It is not how I would've wanted it to be done

Who Should Watch "PACIFIC RIM?"

Otakus (anime/manga fans) and fans of the kaiju genre. This is a mindless action adventure war movie that has no heavy meaning. As stated before, people who are expecting more than what the trailers have been promoting will be in for disappointment. This is the best dumb mindless action movie of the summer. If you want to feel like a kid again, go see this film.

Who Would Watch "Seventh Son" - First Trailer

Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures Presents

The First Trailer for The Big Lebowski's Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore's new fantasy film has premiered today called "SEVENTH SON."

What is it about?

The official synopsis states:

In a time long past, an evil is about to be unleashed that will reignite the war between the forces of the supernatural and humankind once more. Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges) is a knight who had imprisoned the malevolently powerful witch, Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), centuries ago. But now she has escaped and is seeking vengeance. Summoning her followers of every incarnation, Mother Malkin is preparing to unleash her terrible wrath on an unsuspecting world. Only one thing stands in her way: Master Gregory. In a deadly reunion, Gregory comes face to face with the evil he always feared would someday return. He has only until the next full moon to do what usually takes years: train his new apprentice, Tom Ward (Ben Barnes) to fight a dark magic unlike any other. Man’s only hope lies in the seventh son of a seventh son.

To put in a nutshell, it is pretty much the standard fantasy story. Judging from what the trailer showcased, it doesn't really seem to be about anything else. Then again most fantasy stories have more or less the same exact plot. A chosen one, a dark being, a wise mentor, a love interest, monsters, quest, and some form of a happy ending. Then again there are the rare chances that there may not be a happy ending, but for most of the part, this looks like standard fantasy.

What is the vibe of the movie?

Based on the trailer the vibe of the movie seems to be leaning on towards a more fun action fantasy. This was given from the opening shot that reminded me of something from Disney's Prince of Persia accompanied by trailer music used to promote Disney's John Carter (both of which may not be good signs) that already shows a very obvious CGI environment but then is followed by a carriage shot that looks like it was taken from Universal's Snow White and the Huntsman. However the shot after then seems to look like something from Paramount's Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters. Then later on it starts feeling like a mix between stuff from Eragon and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. All those films I listed have pretty conflicting tones in their approach to tell fantasy stories (with the exception of John Carter which is more associated with Sci-Fi) yet as I stated before this film seems to have a fun action vibe. It is definitely showcasing itself to be a spectacle, something to have fun with rather than take seriously. Judging from the look of it however, the way that the trailer is put together doesn't really give a clear sign of whether or not that is what the movie is going for. Indeed the previews for Hansel and Gretel were more obvious with the whole fun vibe, while most of the other movies I mentioned were promoting themselves as serious films. This one...while it seems to be serious, all of the action scenes are saying, "shut up and have fun while we take your money!"

Who Would Watch Seventh Son?

If you happen to be a fan of ALL the films I listed in the "vibe" section then this film may be for you. However it really is hard to tell at this point whether or not this movie will be a winner for Fantasy Film fans. After all most of the films that I've listed above have been pretty mediocre. Yes, I personally consider the first part of The Hobbit trilogy to be mediocre. Mainly because the vibe from the Lord of the Rings is completely different from the vibe from The Hobbit. Not to mention the overuse of CGI. But I digress. In relation to this film however, it may be coming off as in between Eragon and Snow White and the Huntsman in terms of what to expect from Seventh Son. It may be good enough to satisfy  fantasy fans but may not be good enough to satisfy fans of the book. Yes, this movie is based on a book as stated in the trailer. I haven't read the books, but from fan reaction that I've read so far, it doesn't look to be too faithful. So I think it may be safe to say that fans of the series may not like this interpretation, the same way Eragon fans did not like the film. As for the average movie goer, you'd have to be a really big fantasy fan if you want to get your fantasy fix that's not from a book. As of right now, that seems to be all the target audience. Maybe some action and monster fans would watch it too, but as of right now, its hard to say.

Who Should Watch "The Heat"

The Heat - Movie Review

By the book FBI agent meets street smarts detective. Its a story that is all too familiar and has been done over and over again. This dynamic of polar opposites has been a facet of the cop genre in all of its different sub genres. The most prominent being located in the Buddy Cop genre which are mostly action comedies. This one is however a special case in that the two "buddy cops" are women.

Something that hasn't been seen before, in maybe a long time

I can't exactly recall when was the last time a buddy cop movie featured two women as the leading role. Whether it be a serious intense thriller, a silly action film, or a straight up comedy action film, I really don't recall any other movie featuring two women in the starring role of a buddy cop movie. I'm pretty sure that there have been some before, I'm just not aware of them. Some could argue that TNT's show Rizzoli and Isles could very well be a buddy cop genre, but that is a show not a movie. Perhaps there are some in the straight to DVD section. I should try looking into it, but the more I think about, if I can't recall anything for comparison then there probably wasn't that many anyway. And there definitely wasn't a pairing like this that I know of.

So is it worth it?

For the most part, yes it does. Was it amazing? Not in the slightest. So what makes it worth watching? The chemistry between Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. I'm not going much into the plot progression because that is given away in the trailers or if you've seen too many buddy cop movies then you know what happens. But it is this pairing that really makes it interesting to watch. The pair works great together with the material they are given. However McCarthy outshines Bullock in every single scene the two of them share together. There wasn't really a standout moment for Bullock in this film. Pretty much McCarthy's Detective Mullins was a dominating force that grabs the attention away from everyone else, almost turning into a one woman show. Of course to say that the movie would've worked if the focus was entirely on her character, that would be false. Bullock's Agent Ashburn offers a balance to the reckless behavior that Detective Mullins puts out. While I say she balances the scale, it still is pretty one sided in terms of who is overpowering who.

The film portrays Agent Ashburn as the focus of the film with Detective Mullins being the supporting role. Despite that fact, due to the dominating nature of Detective Mullins, it seems as if Agent Ashburn is the supporting role with a lot of character while Detective Mullins is a leading role with a lot of mystery. The dynamic between the pair is interesting on screen. If this film had been split into two movies with Bullock in one and McCarthy in the other it would be two completely different films. It could almost be arguable that McCarthy's film would dominate over Bullock's. Which is why in here they work so well together, however when they are separate, Bullock's character doesn't really seem all too interesting. She has a great detective skill set, sure, but there was not enough charm or wit in the same manner that Benedict Cumberbatch displays in BBC's Sherlock. Her character by herself may have made an interesting flick, but paired with McCarthy's character is what makes it a fairly entertaining one.

Verdict - Cliched but funny

Critical score: 6.5/10 - Melissa McCarthy is truly a force to be reckoned with

Who Should Watch "The Heat?"

My mother is a huge Sandra Bullock fan, but like her and probably many of Bullock's other fans they'll be slightly disappointed by how much she gets outclassed by McCarthy. Lovers of the buddy cop movie genre will find nothing new in terms of plot, but if you're interested to see how it plays out with two female leads, there really isn't' much of a difference. Except for maybe swapping the standard sexy female love interest for a slightly geeky male love interest then maybe that's one other thing that'll be different. This movie is fun, but not for everyone. Sandra Bullock fans will enjoy it, but will be wishing that her character is more like the one she played in Miss Congeniality.

Who Should Watch "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Star Trek Into Darkness - Movie Review

The voyages of the Starship USS Enterprise have not boldly gone where no on has gone before just yet. After a survey mission that turned into a breaking the rules of Starfleet in order to save a species that is not suppose to know Starfleet exists yet goes better than expected, things back home on Earth get horribly worse. Shortly after losing the Captain's chair as well as the Enterprise for breaking the rules of said previous mission, James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) finds himself being locked in to a game of cat and mouse against a  dangerous new enemy. Former Section 31 Super Secret Agent, John Harrison played by BBC Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch. His mission: destroy Starfleet... Or is it?

That is the mystery that Star Trek Into Darkness poses to its viewers: Who is John Harrison and why is he attacking Starfleet? His TRUE identity may not be such a mystery for the casual to hardcore science fiction fan, but its his motivations that are the real mystery.

The Mystery of the Villain

Back in 2009, J.J. Abrams reboot/remake/prequel/sequel Star Trek was a major surprise for audiences. While it may not sit well with some long time Trekkers, the film managed to find a voice and gain new fans (myself included) in what I believe to be one of the most clever ways to reboot a franchise. The idea of having this film tie-in directly with the previous line of work through means of time travel and alternate realities was probably the only way this series could've been rebooted for an audience that has grown tired of Star Trek. With that high precedence and expectations set very high for what is to come, there is only one logical angle for them to go to: Bring on a devastating new villain. The series does appear to have some parallels with the franchise formula established by Chris Nolan's The Dark Knight Trilogy. Star Trek was akin to Batman Begins just as Star Trek Into Darkness is akin to The Dark Knight. Following this formula, the tough question came up as to who this new (or old but rebooted) antagonist will be. Some fans who saw the logic behind this formula automatically pointed towards one individual: Khan Noonien Singh. Arguably the most recognized and iconic Trek villain who was forever immortalized by a powerful performance from Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. And to those fans, it seemed they were right on point.

While the mystery of what the story will be, the contenders for who could play the villain started popping up. Benecio Del Toro and Edgar Ramirez were both approached to play the unnamed antagonist. Given their ethnic background, everyone automatically assumed what seemed to be obvious: the new villain is Khan. However things got interesting when a certain pale, skinny, "Sherlock-ian," British actor was casted in the role. Enter Benedict Cumberbatch, a phenomenal actor who rose to fame through BBC's brilliant modern retelling of Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock. It is this casting choice that goes against all the traits of the people previously considered. That is when things started to boil down to one thing: Who the hell is this guy playing?

As a year passes by since the announcement a lot of peculiar things started popping up. Leaked set photos of a short haired, rather fit, silver long coat, star fleet uniform wearing Benedict Cumberbatch appears online fighting Zachary Quinto's Spock. This is when the theories start popping up. Some locked in to still believing that he's playing Khan. Others however started bringing up other theories. The Star Fleet Uniform must mean he's Gary Mitchell, a former Star Fleet officer who gains superhuman powers. The fashionably long silver coat he wears could mean he's Garth of Izar, a legendary Star Fleet Captain who was hailed as a hero but then goes mad after being turned into a superhuman shapeshifter. Or he could be a new version of Harry Mudd. These were all theories that were thrown around as to who Cumberbatch was playing. It won't be until the first trailer appears that the theories really start to ramp up.

The trailers displayed the following qualities: The villain is really good at making monologues, his voice makes anything sound epic, he has a vendetta against Star Fleet, superhuman abilities, and is pretty much a terrorist. In other words....that could be anyone. Even the revelation of his name being John Harrison didn't help either. Although the qualities do point to the one everyone thought he was from the start, the reason for hiding his identity is all part of the mystery that is this character.

Does it pay off? My reaction

In the long run. No. But I'll get into that in a bit. If you skipped all the way to this part, yes, this is the actual review. The film starts off with a bang having Capt. James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban) on an island inhabited by aliens who have not yet fully developed as a society. The duo cause a distraction to lure the aliens away from a volcano on the verge of erupting that could possibly wipe out all life on the planet (that is their claim not mine). Up top in a small shuttle, Commander Hikaru Sulu (John Cho) and Lt. Uhura (Zoe Saldana) launch Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto) into the volcano to activate a device to prevent its eruption. Things go wrong when the shuttle gets damaged and Spock is left stranded inside the volcano. Sulu, Uhura, Bones, and Kirk make it back to the Starship Enterprise concealed beneath the ocean but faced with a decision: expose the Enterprise to the indigenous aliens and therefore breaking Stafleet's Prime Directive or risk exposure in order to get in range to teleport Spock out of the volcano. Kirk being Kirk, breaks the rules to save Spock's life. Unfortunately for him, that means losing his rank as Captain as well as the Enterprise. 

Some may see this film as retreading ground from the last film due to Kirk not being Captain. However that gets short lived when an attack on Starfleet by former Section 31 Agent John Harrison gives Kirk the leverage with Starfleet's Admiral Marcus to regain his rank, his ship, and launch a manhunt for the terrorist. The film acknowledges something that was a concern in the previous film, Kirk became Captain a little too quickly. In this film that concern is brought to light here with the main story being about Kirk becoming a Captain whereas the previous one was him having to earn it. More so, this film was more focused on the relationship between Kirk and Spock. In the previous film it was animosity which lead to trust. In this film it is about them becoming the friends that long time Trek fans know them to be. However, because it is about developing the relationship of Kirk and Spock from colleagues to friends that meant pushing everyone else to the sidelines. Anton Yelchin's Chekov served a very small part in the film and really didn't do much. New comer Carol Marcus portrayed by Alice Eve does help but not in a grand fashion other than having a memorable underwear scene. And while Simon Pegg's Montgomery Scott was  given a big sub plot, it still was more about Kirk and Spock. That is the one thing I'll hold the previous film in high regard compared to this one. Everyone seemed to be on the same playing field whereas in this film it was more about Kirk and Spock with maybe a little bit of Uhura too. That doesn't mean their performances were bad, their chemistry was great, its just obvious that in this film some were taking the spot light more than the others.

Now comes Cumberbatch's John Harrison, whose real identity is Khan. While not really much of a spoiler it does make me wonder why keep something like that a huge secret? And his casting does call some things into question. While this is an alternate universe they never took the time to explain why Khan looks white instead of being Arab. Then again the original actor who played him wasn't Arab either, but a spray tanned latin man. Ethnicities aside though, with what Cumberbatch had to work with, he delivers as Khan. Does he reach Heath Ledger's level from The Dark Knight? No he doesn't. How so? Mainly because Khan's presence in this film felt more like Tom Hiddleston's Loki in Thor. He hasn't become the menace he could become yet, but this is where his madness starts. And if they decided to bring him back for future sequels, which I hope they do, I'm sure he'll be the tragic calculating monster Trek fans know him to be. They could also come up with the explanation that when Starfleet found him they performed facial reconstruction to hide a known Tyrant from history amongst their ranks. Seriously, how hard would it have been to just add something like that?

For the film overall, it was pretty good. The third act however is when things start treading some hallow ground. While I could argue that the first and second act was a clever way of reintroducing the ideas brought up in the Original Trek episode, "Space Seed," the third act was a borrowing way too much from the iconic Wrath of Khan. Its jarring at first, and while it doesn't bother me to the point where I'll hate this movie, it may bother others to that point.

Verdict: Doesn't surpass my expectations but still good

Critical score: 8.2 - A good follow up, but not the one that we hoped would wow us

Who Should Watch "Into Darkness?"

This film will be more enjoyable to people who are not so passionately connected to Star Trek. It is one of the prominent reason why I can sit through the film and enjoy the ride. However I know some Trek fans who will not be please with the treatment of Khan and the way the Third Act plays out. There are a few Trek fans out there who have embraced the new Alternate Timeline created by J.J. and his team acknowledging that what had came before still exists. The current Star Trek is pretty much the Star Wars prequels we wanted but never got. Lets see how J.J. fairs with a Star Wars Sequel.

Who Should Watch "World War Z"

World War Z - Movie Review

Former U.N. Investigator Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt) finds out that a zombie apocalypse has broken out in his hometown only to discover that this event has been building rapidly across the world. After an adrenaline fueled first act to get his family to safety, Gerry finds himself recruited by the surviving members of the U.N. to help discover the point of origin of the zombie plague and hopefully find the means of eradicating it. Otherwise, the world is doomed.

That's nice.

When a good idea becomes something else entirely

Like many people, or at least I hope more than my circle of friends and myself, I'm aware that this film is based on a book. I'm also aware that the book is not actually a "story," per se. The book is structured as a really elaborate U.N. report that deals with the zombie apocalypse going in depth about how it affects every facet of society as well as the science behind zombies. From what I've heard and from the couple of chapters that I managed to read from the book store (even though it was recommended to me, I don't feel compelled to buy it) I can gather that this might make a great TV series. I say series because I look at The Walking Dead and think that it is doing a superb job in adapting not only a comic book but a very specific horror genre for long narrative silver screen time. The way that I thought that the series would go about would be more like a mock National Geographic or Nova or name anything you see on PBS. What I had in mind was a documentary mockumentary style told in a serious fashion to a point where it can be compelling yet semi-educational. Semi-educational in the sense that everything in this series would not be true, but if the zombie apocalypse does breakout then maybe it will be fully educational. But for all intents and purposes, that's who I viewed this book should be adapted. Then came the news that Brad Pitt's company Plan B has purchased the rights to turn it into a film. My first thoughts were, "interesting." Then when the synopsis came up that it was going to be an action thriller and have an actual plot, that's when I went, "huh?"

The idea of turning this book into a movie was an interesting move. I'll give Brad that. What I thought was weird was the fact that they decided to take the premise of the book alone, or rather take the title, and turn it into a narrative story instead of a long BBC documentary. That's when I started having some doubts about this movie. Then came the announcement of the director, Marc Forster. While I'm aware that this guy directed some pretty critically acclaimed dramas: Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland, I'm also aware that he directed Quantum of Solace, a James Bond flick that I could care less about other than the fact that Olga Kurylenko was in it. In other words, I don't know about him at the helm of an action film, let alone an action horror film. Given how much I didn't really like Quantum of Solace, I began to write this movie off from my radar. Then came the interesting turn of events when J. Michael Straczynski, one of my favorite comic book writers, comes along as the screenwriter. Then my interest was a little bit peeked. That wouldn't last long however. In fact I could really say my interest was not really there. I had some interest, but not enough to have a rabid fan following like I did with the anticipation of Man of Steel. I can honestly say that I pretty much didn't have any interest in it at all. Then came the premier of the trailer.

My first reaction to the trailer was not all that impressed. All I remembered from the trailer was Brad Pitt, a little girl screaming, and a massive horde of zombies moving like ants at a rapid speed. That's when I had zero interest in the movie at all. It wasn't that I don't like Brad Pitt. I like his films with David Fincher. It was because of the zombies that were shown in the trailer. I don't have a problem with fast moving zombies like what was shown in Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake. What I had a problem with was the speed these zombies were moving at. The major superhuman aspect of the zombies automatically told me that this isn't the movie for me. And that I would never watch it. That is until I received a message from a friend I haven't seen in years asking me if I would go see it with her. Not wanting to miss a reunion, I decided to go see it with her.

Sometimes having Low Expectations help

Now for the review. About thirty minutes or so into the film, something began to dawn on me: I really like this movie. After an elaborate Title Sequence that showcases how an event like this could go un notice for a while, it immediately transitions to a quiet setting. Like most zombie films it starts out in a quiet every day setting just to let the audience know that it's not some special event that gets announced but rather something that can happen any time. This film is no difference from the rest with the standard kids jumping on the bed, having breakfast, and then going about one's day. Whatever plans Pitt's Gerry and his family had for the day are abruptly cut short when an incredibly infectious form of rabies turns people into superhuman "zombies" that are almost near indestructible. Almost immediately after the quiet opening the tension and urgency begins to escalate. From that point on it's tension building immediately followed by exhilarating action then subdued by a momentary quiet moment which immediately starts building the tension once again.

As stated before in the plot synopsis, Gerry does eventually get his family to safety due to having a previous connection with the United Nations. However that safe haven that comes in the form of several aircraft carrier ships becomes short lived when Gerry is recruited to once again take on his old position as a U.N. investigator to discover the origin of the virus. While reluctant at first, he discovers he has no other choice due to the policy of keeping only essential personnel on board the ships. In other words, if he doesn't take the job, his family cannot stay on the floating safe haven. Not wanting to put his family through the ordeal of having to survive in a world populated by zombies, he takes back his old job and sets out on a globe trekking mission to discover the fabled Patient Zero.

This is where the film starts to get me. Usually in Zombie films, the setting is only placed in a small setting: a mall, a town, a hotel, some place claustrophobic. And then there are rare occasions when it does take place in a city location, but this film feels different in the fact that it goes global. Some could argue that the Resident Evil films have this epic scale sort of feel. And while they do, for some reason the epic global scale portrayed in World War Z seems ten times larger than what was shown in Resident Evil. I now understood what the creators of the film meant when they were creating an international thriller that spans across the globe. Even though it does have the horror element of it, this film is by no means a horror film. It is first and foremost an action thriller that goes global, similar to the Bourne series except with a lead who is not an advanced secret agent but a well trained government employee.

The globe hopping helped drive this story forward while at the same time offering us glimpses of how different countries would react to the situation. The most memorable location as well as the one with the  biggest scale was Jerusalem. The portrayal of how the city would react to a situation like the one presented was pretty much how it seemed to be. It was definitely one of the most memorable moments of the film and delivers on some great intense action sequences.

The third act however is when the tension starts to take over above the action. The third act is what most people attuned with the zombie genre will be familiar with. An isolated location inhabited by zombies. It is a tense driven third act that really brings back what zombie lovers adore about the genre, without the blood and gore that happens along the way.

All of this tension could not have been done without a solid direction as well as a solid cast. Forster delivers in directing what could have pretty much been a disaster, but he handled it with such precision and gave it the right amount of pacing it needed. Brad Pitt, being the only big name star in the film, had a lot on his shoulders to carry the entire movie through from beginning to end and he completely nails it. His character's interaction with the family were genuine and added some weight in hoping that his character doesn't get killed. The film benefits from not surrounding Pitt with even more big name stars. Although it can be argued that The Killing's Mireille Enos is a big name on television, most audience members would probably not know she's the header for a prominent TV drama. I would say that this movie would benefit more if no big name stars were on it, but having Pitt in the film really adds a big draw for audiences to a film that would need it. Lost's Matthew Fox is present in the film but was really just an extra, not even a glorified extra, just an extra.

If there are any complaints I have it really was not going in depth with whatever subtext they were trying to deal with. As I've stated before, the Jerusalem set piece was brilliant, yet at the same time it kind of looks over some of the possible social commentary that was definitely present there. It also doesn't help that by the end of the film it feels like a Pepsi Commercial. When and if you watch you will understand what I mean.

Verdict: Exceeds My Low Expectations by Miles

Critical Score: 7.5/10 - A really good Pepsi Commercial

Personal Score: 8.3/10 - I really was not expecting to like this

Who Should Watch "World War Z?"

I have to give a warning to Zombie fans in that this is not the film you will be expecting. There are no endless gallons of blood. There are no limb chopping or exaggerated head shots of any kind. This is a PG-13 action thriller, and by action it really puts the action and thriller aspect first before the zombie aspect. If you're a lover of action films like the Bourne Series and don't mind having near indestructible superhuman zombies that can do incredible things running around every now and then, this is the movie for you. Fans of The Walking Dead or any other zombie film may not find this to their liking, but that really depends on how much are you will to accept what this movie is and not what you want it to be. It is a definite must watch for the summer as great entertainment. Probably the most exhilarating summer blockbuster this year so far.

Would Should Watch "Monsters University"

Monsters University - Movie Review

If you have seen Monsters Inc. then you are very well aware of the ultimate "scare team": Mike and Sulley. The two powerhouse monsters from Monsters Incorporated were not always the prime example of what a scare team should be. The story takes place at a time when Mike and Sulley, were not Mike and Sulley. It takes place at the very beginning: a young Mike Wazowski (and by young I mean very child young) on a class Field Trip to Monsters Incorporated, where the inspiration for pursuing a career in scaring takes hold in his mind. In order to do that, he'll have to learn from the best: Monsters University. Mike climbs his way up the academic ladder and gets accepted into the Scaring School of Monsters University. It is here that he meets Jimmy P. Sullivan who will eventually be known as Sulley. The two don't start off on good terms but eventually find themselves confronted with a situation that could make or break them at the University.

The Problem with Prequels

Monsters University, is a prequel. This is an area that Pixar has not adventured in before. They have done sequels which help progress the characters forward and add more depth to them. However, the thing about Prequels is simply this: we know what happens to them. We know that Mike and Sulley will succeed, in some form or another. We know how their relationship is going to wind up in the end. Mike (Billy Crystal) will be the coach and Sulley (John Goodman) will be the scare master. The premise of seeing how they come together was not really something that was on people's minds when they watched Monsters Inc. However there are some rare occasions when a Prequel Works.

What I liked about "Monsters U."

1. The evolution of Mike's character. His origin was the most interesting of the duo. While we know Mike doesn't wind up being a scarer in Monsters Inc. it is interesting to point out that being a scarer was his original dream to begin with.
2. Sulley, or rather Jimmy, in the film as a cockier version of himself. While I found it cliche that they went with the most obvious angle for his character's origin, a cocky jerk who turns out to be a softy, the way it was handled was so well that the cliche could be forgiven. Besides, what else were they going to do?
3. Oozma Kappa Fraternity. The characters in Oozma Kappa were both fun and a great representation of Pixar at their best. The stand out of the bunch was Art voiced by "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's" Charlie Day.
4. All the voice acting was superb. With voice cameos all around, it all felt natural to watch and absorb. It never felt like someone was in there as a gimmick. It all just worked.
5. The twist of how they really end up to work at Monsters Inc. was obviously well thought out and a clever way of throwing viewers off with how you expect the story to go.

What I didn't like about "Monsters U."

I really only have one thing to say which is, that twist I mentioned before. That twist really makes me question the message that this movie is trying to send. Obviously education is important, but given what happens in the movie it makes it seems like it isn't. Not that there's anything wrong with what they did, it just makes me wonder what kind of message they're trying to send to children. It makes sense to us who are in college, however I don't know what this could mean to kids who see it. That's just me. You can interpret it anyway you want. I suppose it means: Never Give Up On Your Dreams.

Verdict: A great pixar film, not amazing and emotional, but great

8/10 - This isn't Pixar's best film, but it is pure entertainment!

Who Should Watch Monsters University?

This is definitely a film that everyone can see. However if you have a really big problem with prequels, then this probably isn't for you. If you have a strong hatred for Pixar (I know a few people who don't like Pixar) or animated movies made from America in general (same exact people I'm talking about earlier) then by all means save the trouble of everyone else who want to enjoy it. It seems pointless to watch a movie you know you're going to hate just to prove that you hate it. You're just wasting money. Whereas the people who will watch this will find their money's worth. It isn't going to reach the emotional highs that previous Pixar films had achieved (sans Cars 2 and Brave) but it is definitely a fun and enjoyable movie to watch.

Who Should Watch "Man of Steel"

Man of Steel - Movie Review

In the words of Grant Morrison (author of All-Star Superman), "Doomed planet. Desperate scientists. Last hope. Kindly couple. Superman." Those words from his critically acclaimed take on the Man of Steel, accompanied by minimalistic art, immediately tells the reader the origins of Superman in a few short bursts.

This sets the stage for the remaining narrative. Kal El has made his way safely to our planet, Earth, and has grown up to become Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) who goes on a journey of discovering who he is. Once he does he triggers a series of events that would eventually launch him into direct conflict with General Zod. It is through this confrontation that he is faced with the ultimate decision: does he save the human race from genocide or does he help his own people restore their race?

A difficult task to shoulder

Taking on a character of this magnitude is very shaky ground. What Superman represents is something beyond the pages of a comic. He represents hope. A hope that there is a better tomorrow. And in the current world we live in, Superman doesn't seem to fit in a world where there seems to be no hope. It is even a world where he is now criticized as always doing the right thing and not being a dark character. This is where Zack Snyder comes in to play, taking on the responsibility of bringing this character into a modern world. The "300" and "Watchmen" director takes on the challenge head on knowing that this will probably be the most important film he's made for comic book fandom other than "Watchmen."

Did his team pull through? Here's my breakdown:

What I didn't like about Man of Steel

1. Promoted itself to be some serious dramatic film when it is really a heavy action film with dramatic elements.
2. The pacing of the beginning after the Krypton Scenes.
3. The oil rig rescue was too short and didn't really deliver a heroic "Yeah! Save them, Superman!" moment.
4. The scenes that occur in between the flashbacks before Lois Lane shows up didn't really add much to the narrative other than being filler between flashbacks.
5. Amy Adams has not really reached the level I was expecting for Lois. She shows promise during the "interrogation" scene with Superman. If she had that type of chemistry flowing through the whole film I would've loved her performance.
6. Some of the dialogue were taken directly straight from comic books. While it may work in a comic, that doesn't necessarily mean it will work in a film.
7. For a script that boasts the writing of David S. Goyer (Batman Begins and the Dark Knight) and Christopher Nolan (the Dark Knight and the Dark Knight Rises) it wasn't as profound as some might hope.
8. Constant use of a J.J. Abrams Star Trek' Pop Zoom that gets a little bit annoying at times.
9. Product Placement Galore: While its expected, it doesn't really seem that subtle in this film. Despite the fact that their argument for doing so is to show that it takes place in our world. Yes it does, but it's also like shoving an ad in my face.
10. The intense "shaky cam" that was used to give it a documentary style feel.
11. The intense "shaky cam" disappearing entirely at the end of the movie.
12. The final battle did feel to go on forever just a tad bit.
13. Henry Cavill didn't really had that much to work with. His portrayal of Clark was really a man of few words but when he transitions to Superman he had more to say. Even then it still appeared he had little to work with till he put on the "S."

What I did like about Man of Steel

1. The scenes on Krypton were some of the most imaginative and best fantasy science fiction worlds I've seen in a while. I only hope the new Star Wars films will impress me as much as Snyder and his art department have done with Krypton.
2. Jor El was given more than just a mentor role. It shouldn't be a spoiler that he dies on Krypton but the method of keeping him as an active role in the film was really well done and helped move the plot. Russell Crowe's performance as Jor El was definitely my favorite part of the film.
3. The change to Kal El's birth. Making Superman the first naturally born Kryptonian instead of a genetically engineered being with a specific purpose (ex. Zod and Faora were made to be soldiers and nothing else) adds more to his character in giving him the choice of choosing who he wants to be.
4. Jonathan and Martha Kent portrayed by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane respectively. Their scenes added the heart to the film that it needed in order to prevent it from moving to dark territory.
5. The decision to base him a little bit more on Kal L (the original Superman from the 1930s and Earth 2) than Kal El (the mainstream Superman). Kal L is more violent and learns restraint later on in the comics but that is in part due to him being raised in an orphanage. With the Kents in the picture as well as his reaction to killing someone, its clear that this Superman will eventually become the Kal El from the mainstream comics everyone knows."
6. The military actually seems to know what they're doing in this film. Major props to Christopher Meloni's character in the film.
7. The villains actually posed a direct threat to humanity. While Michael Shannon did fine as General Zod, Antje Traue was definitely the more memorable of the two performance wise.
8. Reasonable explanation for Superman's Alter Ego.
9. While the battles may have been too long, they were definitely the best Superhero battles ever produced on film. I actually felt like the world was at stake, unlike in The Avengers where at no point did I feel like the world would be conquered.
10. Cavill is Superman

Verdict: There is still Hope...even if it's not the one we hoped for

Professionaly as a critic: 6/10 - Does not live up to the expectations that were set

My personal view though: 8.5/10 - My standards were met even though they weren't exceeded

Some may ask me why would I like something that seems disappointing? Well first of all, if anyone were to call this the worst Superman movie ever, I'd have to disagree with them when Christopher Reeves' Superman III and IV were clearly the worst Superman movies ever. I refuse to personally label this film a terrible movie, because it isn't. The problem that most people will have with this is that the audience is expecting something like "The Dark Knight" when they should've been expecting "Batman Begins." And when I walked out of the theater, knowing that it was getting negative criticism, I told myself, "I love this movie." Do I disagree with the critics who give it a negative review? No, because they are right. But what I don't agree with, is this being a horrible movie. It is a good start to a brand new Superman Franchise, and I hope to see more in the future.

Who Should Watch Man of Steel?

Fans of Superman who are open for new interpretations should definitely see this take on the character. DC comics fans who have an open mind may be able to appreciate what this film has to offer. Hardcore comic readers will be divided. Fans of Zack Snyder's work should definitely watch this film in order to see a completely different side of him that doesn't involved heightened worlds and numerous slow-mo. For a normal audience, its hard to tell. Most will walk out in awe, with some not so much impressed. Film buffs will look at this movie and really think nothing of it, ignoring what has come before. It is a polarizing film, but it deserves better criticism than what it is receiving now.