Dino-Mite: “Jurassic World” Brings a Beloved Franchise Roaring Back to Life

The appeal of “Jurassic World” always was and will always be finally getting to see a working dinosaur theme park. A vision the eccentric billionaire John Hammond always wanted. And it is a rather awesome place; not unlike a dinosaur-themed Disney World. I'm not sure why it could be so successful since the terrible incidents depicted in the first film (and it's debatable whether this fourth entry most likely ignores parts 2 and 3) and the fact that you have to fly half way around the world to visit. But it's a pretty amazing place. You can kayak down a river with the friendly dinosaurs. Watch a Shamu-like aquatic presentation complete with feeding time with a great white shark. Oh and the shark is the food. It's a park filled to the brim with tourists and everything seems to be running smoothly. And then, as is this franchise's mantra, all hell breaks loose.

It must be said that one must reign in their expectations when it comes to this fourth entry. No new Jurassic Park sequel will ever beat the original especially if you consider it a life-changing experience as most people between the ages of 20 and 40 will tell you. “Jurassic World” feels like it was designed with most of those people in mind who always wondered what a real working dinosaur park would be like.

The film sets up it's premise rather unspectacularly but efficiently. Two brothers are shipped off to visit their Aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) who is the operations manager at Jurassic World. It's a fully functional, and successful, dino theme park on Isla Nublar (the same location from the first film). Claire is a busy woman though, as she's preparing a new attraction featuring a genetically modified hybrid dinosaur that is bigger and meaner than anything they've created before, so she doesn't have much time to spend with her nephews: the teenage Zach (Nick Robinson) and younger Gray (Ty Simpkins). Park owner Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan) comes to check out the new dinosaur but insists Velociraptor expert Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) check out the vicious dinosaur's enclosure for safety measures.

If you're guessing that this new dinosaur, named Indominus Rex, somehow breaks loose and wrecks havoc upon the entire park you'd be correct. To say much more would ruin all the fun. There is a side story about InGen security guy Vic Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio) who wants the raptors, who Owen has been working with to train (don't worry, they're still pretty lethal, intelligent, and scary) for other reasons. And then there's the engineer played by BD Wong, the only character from the first film, who has a more “important” role. Meanwhile, Claire’s nephews sneak off from the care of Claire's assistant who was tasked with watching the boys. And let's just say they get onto the gyrosphere ride at the worst possible time.

“Jurassic World” somehow works really well. Howard and Pratt are perfectly cast and give convincing performances. There's a slight love story involved but it's nowhere near the corny and forced storyline shoehorned into many movies like this. Sure the film isn't directed by Steven Spielberg, but Colin Trevorrow makes an adequate replacement. He hits all the right buttons with a script filled with delightful Jurassic Park callbacks. This film truly feels like the direct Jurassic Park sequel we've all been waiting for. The action scenes, while not as iconic as the first film, are well staged and memorable. The effects are also well-done but never as awe-inspiring as the first time we saw those Brachiosauruses in 1993. Michael Giacchino's score is efficient with just enough John Williams beats to be familiar and comforting.

As a big “Jurassic Park” fan I truly loved everything about “Jurassic World.” It made me feel like a kid again. Is it every bit as good as the first film? Of course not. Nothing will ever be as good. It works much better than the second and third films. It's fun, intense, surprisingly graphic, and filled with just enough wonder to make you wish “Jurassic World” was a real place. Not that anyone would be able to afford it the trip, unless maybe they had a coupon day or something.  GRADE: A-

Theatrical Trailer for Jurassic World on TrailerAddict.

Without Further Ado: Creepy Prequel “Insidious Chapter 3” Improves Upon Its Predecessor

“Insidious” was one of the more memorable horror entries in the genre to come out in quite some time. It was a low-budget ghost story with relatable characters, an interesting story, and most importantly well-earned frights. A sequel was inevitable but while the “Back to the Future Part II” type hijinks were fun the second film failed to even come close to the original. How could this third entry with an almost entirely new casts (because it's a prequel) be any good whatsoever? It surprisingly is. It deepens the story of the likable medium Elise (Lin Shaye) and how she comes to work with those two silly ghosthunters while delivering enough decent scares to keep you on edge.

It's wonderful how far Shaye, sister of former New Line Cinema president Bob Shaye, has come in her career. She was basically planting in various New Line movies in tiny roles because nepotism. She's the teacher in “A Nightmare on Elm Street” she's Mrs. “Noogieburger” in “Dumb & Dumber” and she was a flight attendant in “Snakes on a Plane.” Of course, let's not forget her memorable turn as the dog-kissing human leather bag Magda in “There's Something About Mary.” Here, as one of the industry's hardest working character actors she's finally given the standout role practically headlining her own movie at the ripe old age of 71.

The story of “Insidious Chapter 3” involves a teenage girl named Quinn (Stefanie Scott) who lives in an apartment with her widowed father and younger brother. She contacts Elise to help her “communicate” with her mother. A short time later, a tragic accident occurs which leads Quinn to be haunted by an evil entity. Elise is called upon, though she previously insisted on being retired, to help the girl after strange and disturbing phenomenon occur. Quinn's dad initially contacts two ghostbusting dudes from the internet, who are Elise's co-workers from the first and second film. One of them is played by Leigh Whannell, who co-wrote all the films and makes his directorial debut here. Taking the reigns from James Wan (too busy directing Furious Seven, who appears onscreen in a brief cameo) Leigh's debut is completely efficient. His film isn't far from the look and feel of the first two films, as many of the same crew members return.

“Insidious Chapter 3” feels like it's missing the legitimacy of stars Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson, but there's actually a welcomed breath of fresh air in this storyline. As Quinn's dad, Dermot Mulroney does a great job of being a likable dad. He's definitely not the typical horror movie dad who doesn't believe the strange and bizarre things going around in his home. The real star here of course is Shaye who makes the film her own. She's 71 she's definitely earned it and actually has the talent to pull it off.

And thankfully the film is decently scary. Yes the film shows us the controversial other world known as “The Further” and it's something as a viewer you must accept or reject. It's as well done as it ever could be. In fact it's way better than how it was portrayed in the recent “Poltergeist” redo. I really enjoy the continuing story of this series. I can't vouch for how necessary a fourth entry would be but Wan and Whannell have started and continued to make a great mark in the horror genre. Fans of the original film shouldn’t have too much to complain about here. And for the record, the final shot of the film scared the ever loving piss out of me. GRADE: B

Trailer for Insidious: Chapter 3 on TrailerAddict.

The Woman with the Golden Gun: “Spy” is a Surprisingly Funny Action Comedy

“Spy” could have easily gone either way. To be honest, I was originally predicting an atrocious “Paul Blart” level piece of crap especially after Paul Feig’s last film “The Heat” failed to capture the same comedic highs as his modern classic “Bridesmaids.” Not that there was much necessarily bad about “The Heat,” though I had generally mixed feelings about the mix of comedy and action. That kind of thing isn’t always successful. Luckily, his latest endeavor is a real highlight being a sort female James Bond-like comedic adventure. It’s a formula that should feel worn out, stale, and just plain overdone but somehow it all works thanks mostly to the continued comedic brilliance of Melissa McCarthy and Rose Byrne in yet another showcase supporting role.

No one would ever believe Melissa McCarthy as a lethal CIA field agent so when “Spy” opens she’s just Susan Cooper, an office worker who literally works in the rodent-infested basement of the CIA. She’s in the earpiece of field agent Bradley Fine (Jude Law in a rare comedic role) giving him directions as he shoots, runs, and does other spy movie things. However, after a tragedy occurs Susan convinces her boss, played by Allison Janney, that she should go into the field to find a deadly arms dealer, as she’s one of the few agents the bad guys have never laid eyes on. She’s given the corny “secret identity” of a permed loser (and then one of a crazy cat lady) as she’s assigned to observe. Of course, one thing leads to another and she’s eventually interacting with the villainous Rayna Boyanov (Byrne) who is Susan’s number one enemy.

For an action comedy, there’s actually a lot of plot in “Spy” and many twists and turns that was difficult to see coming. Feig, who is the sole credited writer here, actually has crafted a decent screenplay even if his direction could have been slightly tighter (the film perhaps goes on a few minutes too long). Although for a guy known for directing comedies has some surprisingly decent action and fight scenes. The real highlight there though is the chemistry between McCarthy and Byrne which has been apparent since their appearance in “Bridesmaids.” 

McCarthy is a truly gifted comedian. She gives Susan just the right amount of emotional depth and you can actually believe her transition from desk job to field agent even if the movie is genuinely silly and filthy at times. Byrne, complete with supervillain accent (probably not far from her real life inflection) simply shines and plays off wonderfully with her co-stars. Another highlight is action man Jason Statham, spoofing his macho man image to great effect here as a rogue, rival colleague of Susan’s.  If anything, the only part of the film that didn’t quite work was Susan’s co-worker Nancy (British comedian Miranda Hart) whose jokes mostly fell sort of flat. It was obvious they were trying to copy Rebel Wilson’s weird British roommate from “Bridesmaids” but are not nearly as successful.

Overall, “Spy” is an outstanding action comedy. Anyone who’s even the slightest fan of any of these actors would be doing themselves a favor and checking out this funny romp. Feig actually proves he can direct both action and comedy (and write for that matter) even if his editing skills aren’t always up to task. McCarthy is a comic genius and in the right hands and script, as she’s proved time and time again, is simply a comedic force to be reckoned with. Enough so, that the announced female-driven “Ghostbusters” seems to be a better idea as time goes by.  GRADE: B+

Theatrical Trailer for Spy on TrailerAddict.

The Magnificent Seven: The Action-Packed “Furious Seven” Fires on All Cylinders

How many film franchises can boast that their seventh entry is actually the best? Of course, when the first film in your series is “The Fast & the Furious” that’s not really saying all that much. However, “Furious Seven” the SIXTH sequel in this mindbogglingly successful franchise is actually the most well-rounded, epic, entertaining, and satisfying as anything that came before it. The series really has done a complete 180. It started out as a lame street racing drama and has become a must-see series of action-packed heist and James Bond-esque spy thrillers that are merely shadows of its rocky beginnings.

Horror director James Wan, hot off the success of his “Insidious” films and “The Conjuring” goes a completely route by tackling his first action film. He brings a fresh eye to the series but the film maintains the same sense of absurdity and state-of-the art stunt and effects that fans of these films crave. There are more fights, crashes, and ridiculousness to fill three films. Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his “family” return but this time he’s back in the US living a quiet retired life. That is, until Jason Statham’s Deckard Shaw shows up to get revenge for his brother (the villain from the previous movie). Another mysterious character known as Mr. Nobody shows up who needs help finding a kidnapped computer hacker who can hack into a God-like computer system that can find the location of anyone in the world. If Dominic and his team can retrieve the hacker then Mr. Nobody will let him use the program to track down Shaw.

What comes next is nothing short of crazy, thrilling, and completely ludicrous set pieces involving dropping vehicles out of planes and cars driving through buildings INTO other buildings. Things like physics and gravity never seem to be an issue. The filmmakers know that by now the fans crave this stuff and have certainly upped the ante on crazy stunts and fights. Oh the fights. There are too many to count. In one two characters tussle as they are flying down stairs on a broken door. Another is one of those female-on-female fights so we know that woman can fight just as good as men. If you’re willing to turn your brain off and just take in the action you’re guaranteed to enjoy it. It’s all utterly crazy to the point of being practically comical and you chuckle in spite of yourself. But the thing is: it’s all very well done. You have to hand it to Wan and his crew; everything is expertly staged for maximum enjoyment and suspense. There’s nary a dull moment to be had and the film has a breathtaking use of various striking locations from the deserts of Abu Dhabi to the mountains of Eastern Europe. And I mean they literally drive their cars down mountains and off cliffs. Did I mention it’s ridiculous?

Odds are you’ve decided already if “Furious Seven” is a movie worth seeing. As someone pretty new to the franchise I really dug it. I’m amazed at how the series has developed over time. The fifth film really reinvented itself as a heist thriller and here the film goes all spy thriller. It’s “Mission: Impossible” with more cars. These films, as written by series regular Chris Morgan, have never been about thoughtful dialogue, and as corny as they can be at times you do get a sense that these characters and the actors who play them are indeed “family.” The ensemble is pretty solid. The film, which easily overcomes a possible icky factor due to the real-life death of lead Paul Walker, also plays terrific tribute to its lost star in a way that is fitting and tasteful. Even with all the previously witnessed explosions, fights, crashes, and extreme death toll, the film ends on a well-earned emotional note that is brilliantly handled.  GRADE: A- 

Revised Trailer for Furious 7 on TrailerAddict.

The Fault in Our Stars: The Dumb but Fun “San Andreas” is a Rockin' Disaster Epic

Is it impossible to make a disaster film without relying on the overused “I have to get to my [insert family member here]!” storyline? Movies like "The Day After Tomorrow," "Dante's Peak," "Volcano," and even the Oscar-nominated “The Impossible” all follow the basic premise of some kind of terrible event that separates the characters and them eventually being reunited. And there can be only one rational explanation: no one gives a crap about the actual plot of disaster films. You can count me among them. Give me your cliched disaster situations, dumb-as-stumps characters, and whatever other lame attempts at a storyline you can come up with; if it's an epic scale disaster film I don't even care. It's cinematic junk food at its best; and this being a post-9/11 world, the genre has mostly been seen as un-PC. Having said all that, “San Andreas” is one of the best disaster films I've seen in quite some time. It may actually be one of the best ones since “Twister.” And it's the only disaster film having to do strictly with earthquakes since 1974's appropriately titled “Earthquake.”

And at least this time we don't have to sit for an hour being introduced to boring characters before the rumbling starts. We're introduced to boring characters and the money shots begin almost immediately. The star of the film is Dwayne Johnson who is Ray, a firefighter/helicopter pilot who is recently separated from his wife Emma, played by Carla Gugino. They have a daughter Blake (Alexandra Daddario) who's entering college. Yes, the college girl from “Son-in-Law” is now old enough to be the mother of a college student. The three characters are separated, a massive earthquake hits, as predicted by seismologist Lawrence Hayes (Paul Giamatti) who has the all-important task of explaining to the audience what's happening scientifically.

Since Ray appears to be one of the more selfish emergency responders he insists in going after his wife and daughter before helping any of the millions of people currently being crushed, engulfed, or swallowed by the violently shaking earth. Ray sets out in his helicopter first for his wife and then for his daughter who was helped by a young British guy who caught her eye and his younger brother. The trio set out to find a location where Blake's dad is sure to find them. I'll let you guess whether they eventually all miraculously meet up amongst the sheer chaos.

Alright enough about the simply, preposterous and unoriginal plot line as conceived by story writers Andre Fabrizio and Jeremy Passmore. We have former Lost writer Carlton Cuse to blame for corny lines of dialogue like, “It's been a long time since I got you to second base” after Ray and his wife parachute onto a baseball field. But forget all that. This movie is simply 100% disaster flick entertainment. The special effects are pretty spectacular if not always totally convincing. The film is actually rather intense as proved by the small child sitting near me who almost had a heart attack. “San Andreas” sort of hits all of the standard beats but it does it all so well and is very well staged by director Brad Peyton who I won't embarrass by stating his previous filmography.

“San Andreas” is the best kind of dumb fun you can have at the movies. None of the corny or cliched moments take away from how glorious the disaster sequences really are. It brought me back to when first saw “Twister” and being amazed by what was happening on screen and not caring about the film's thin or ludicrous story. The film doesn't rely on a large Irwin Allen-like supporting cast so we don't have to jump back and forth between characters we don't really care about. And the actors here really aren't all that bad – I’m disturbed to say that “The Rock” is, in fact, not a terrible actor. If you want to see an out-and-out fun disaster epic and one thankfully not too long (like the similar “2012”), “San Andreas” will certainly fit the bill.  GRADE: B+

Trailer for San Andreas on TrailerAddict.

Ghostblunder: The Disappointing “Poltergeist” Redo is Rather Unremarkable

In the original 1982 film “Poltergeist” real skeletons were allegedly used in the pool sequence. Real as in actual human remains. They were apparently cheaper than the plastic ones. In the remake of “Poltergeist” they don't even use prop skeletons; they're made in the computer and are not very convincing. Of course, the original series of films was apparently “cursed” after several cast members passed away after shooting the movies. The new cast could only be so lucky.

There's actually nothing truly wrong or extremely bad about the new “Poltergeist.” It's just that in a world where movies like “Insidious” and “Paranormal Activity” and “The Conjuring” (which may be one of the best haunted house movies since "Poltergeist") exist it feels a bit redundant to redo a movie that inspired all of the above. The film pays tribute to the original film by reenacting memorable moments: the tree, the clown, the bent silverware, etc. The film hardly does anything new, transcendent, or creative with the material; material that was pretty much perfect from the get-go.

When remakes of well-liked movies happen it's usually because it would be interesting to see that story with modern effects – for example, “King Kong” a rare remake done right. The redo even won an Oscar for those impressive new effects. The original “Poltergeist” was nominated for three Oscars including for it's visual effects. Are 2015 computer effects more impressive than what could be accomplished in the 80s? Generally, yes. But you know what's really missing? Creativity. Nowadays a computer can show an audience anything. In 1982 it was way more impressive (and in terms of horror, shocking), which is why nothing that director Gil Kenan (a damning directing gig if there ever was one) throws in front of us is even remotely scary, cool-looking, or generally impressive even by modern standards.

The new cast includes Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt as the heads of the Bowen family. They move into a new house and quickly notice some strange phenomenon. Can we retire the cliché of a family moving into a new house only to discover it's actually haunted? That would be great. Like in the original film they have three kids: a teenage daughter, a young song, and the youngest daughter. Of all the actors, I was most impressed with Kyle Catlett as the middle child Griffin who gets an entire story arc all to his self, even if it's contradicting (the film opens up with him playing a violent zombie video game and then presents him as being afraid of everything). The youngest daughter, named Maddy here instead of the reusing the iconic name Carol Anne, is again the one who the ghosts make contact with and then kidnap. And instead of diminutive psychic Tangina we get Jared Hess doing his own reality TV host version which feels uninspired and uninteresting. Jane Adams is good as a fellow paranormal researcher who helps investigate. The new script by “Rabbit Hole” writer David Lindsay-Abaire even controversially shows us the ghostly other world: and it's more yawn inducing than sacrilegious. Hands down the best new sequence in the film involves a power drill.

The original “Poltergeist” may not be the best movie of all time, far from it, but it's a classic of the horror genre and was a terrific summer movie blockbuster. It was an event - until E.T. came along a week later at least. Nothing about this new film feels even remotely as important or awe-inspiring. It's missing that sense of Spielbergian wonder that was so prevalent in the original film most people argue the man even directed it. There's nothing really wrong with the film – the actors are good at least and it's not nearly the trainwreck that is “Poltergeist III” – but there's nothing memorable about the look of the film or even it's music, two more areas where the original has this film beat. Not to mention the fact that nothing in the film is truly that scary if you're over the age of 12 (the scariest thing in the movie is probably a squirrel).  If you're a fan of the 1982 version and you have any sense of apprehension towards this new one it's probably best to just steer clear. As they say, stay away from the light.   GRADE: C  

Trailer for Poltergeist on TrailerAddict.

Fast & Furiosa: The Superb “Mad Max: Fury Road” is a Ridiculously Entertaining Thrill Ride

I’ve always had a theory that sequels to well-loved movie franchises that get made many years later are rarely, if ever, successful. “Mad Max: Fury Road” has proven me wrong. Not only is it an amazing sequel but it completely bests each and every film that came before it. The “Mad Max” post-apocalyptic Australian film series from director George Miller is an cult trilogy that has aged poorly though all the films have one positive thing in common: simply outstanding stunt work and car chases. Could you imagine if The Road Warrior has been made today? Well now we can with the release of “Fury Road” – and strap in because it is one ludicrous and thrilling ride filled with jaw-dropping camerawork, effects, and production value that completely blows the original films out of the water.

This fourth entry has very little setup and that’s fine: all you need to know is that it takes place in a post-apocalyptic world where water and gasoline are hot and rare commodities. Max (Tom Hardy, taking over Mel Gibson’s role) is still mad as ever and has a touch of the crazies as anyone would living in this stylishly produced desert wasteland. In the film’s opening moments his kidnapped by a bunch of equally crazy guys known as the War Boys who work for their leader Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) a wild-eyed masked villain with a Darth Vadar-like voice. He attempts to escape as trucker Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) goes on a mission with her tanker to retrieve gasoline… though she has ulterior motives which sets off the film’s entire plot into motion: a kick-ass car chase that hardly lets up for a minute. Max and Furiosa, each apprehensive, eventually team up forming one of cinema’s greatest action duos of recent memory. And throw in Nicholas Hoult as a morally questioning War Boy Nux for good measure.

Yeah that’s basically it. You get almost two hours of crazy vehicles chasing each other through the desert and it’s all utterly amazing. The 70 year-old Miller (who’s last three films were Babe: Big in the City, Happy Feet, and Happy Feet Two) sits confidently behind the camera giving us dizzying shot after dizzying shot of explosions and automotive mayhem that Michael Bay couldn’t on dream of conceiving.  Cinematographer John Seale (also in his 70s) was coaxed out of retirement. The guy is no stranger to shooting in deserts, having won an Oscar for lensing “The English Patient” but his work his groundbreaking. Miller employs mostly practical effects with real stunt people performing at high speeds. We’re talking crazy stuff here like crazy guys wielding chainsaws and flaming throwing guitars. It’s also so… Australian. It’s like Baz Luhrmann wanted to make an action thriller or something.

With all the frenetic action and amazing stunt set pieces, there’s actually a lot going on emotionally as well. The film has a strong feminist element which never felt forced and gives the story, which essentially a long chase, real gravitas. The performances are also wonderful, especially Theron who has found her Ripley role as Furiosa. Hardy makes a great action hero grunting along the way though his bad boy looks feel strange opposite all of the bizarre make-up and costume design. This is such a fascinating world Miller and team has created and everything here is simply top notch and beautifully conceived and produced. And it’s all given a heartbeat with a simply amazing, pulse-pounding score from electronic musician Tom Holkenborg (who goes by the stage name Junkie XL).

“Mad Max: Fury Road” is a complete assault on the senses in the best way possible. It’s a dazzling piece of big-budget action filmmaking. It feels like something so different from what came before it and yet it feels like a nature step in the Mad Max cannon. It may just have a simple point A to point B plot, but there just isn’t anything else out there like it. See it and you’ll never drive the same way again!  GRADE: A

Feature Trailer for Mad Max: Fury Road on TrailerAddict.

Artful Intelligence: “Ex Machina” is a Stand Out Sci-Fi Thriller

There have been countless films that deal with artificial intelligence. “Ex Machina” is yet another one. And yet in a time where not many films truly feel original, “Ex Machina” manages the difficult task of showing us something we haven't seen before while not forgetting all that came before. The difference is that the film is a superbly crafted little thriller. It's focus is more on characters than it's effects, which actually works to its benefit because what little effects there is are simply amazing. And of course, like most films in this genre, the less said about the plot the better.

When Stanley Kubrick died back in 1999 he had started planning on directing “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” which was eventually directed by Steven Spielberg. What resulted was somewhat of a beautiful mess. A film with conflicting outlooks and a sort of uneven story. I truly feel “Ex Machina” is what Kubrick might have made had he lived long enough to tell a story about artificial intelligence.

We're introduced to computer programmer Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) who is whisked away to meet his genius boss who lives isolated in a large sterile high-tech research facility, seemingly alone. He's taken via helicopter. There's he finally meets Nathan (Oscar Isaac) who is as brilliant as he is an alcoholic. Nathan tells Caleb that he's created an AI that is seemingly human and wants him to take part in research tests with it. Ava (Alicia Vikander) is a magnificent creation who moves, looks, and acts like a real human woman. Only the metal pieces and wires running through her arms, lets, and torso give her away as a robot. Ava is not only a magnificent creation but she's a technical wonder cinematically speaking. The special effects that bring this character to life are nothing short of amazing. It's truly a technological breakthrough as Ava is a stunning visual effect.

The film then presents us with segments in which Caleb and Ava interact – with Nathan, somewhat creepily, observing via cameras. Writer and director Alex Garland, making his directorial debut (and frequently collaborating with Danny Boyle), has crafted his film much like a play: there really are only a few characters and most scenes consist of conversations between Caleb and Ava and then between Caleb and Nathan. As the sessions go on Ava appears to have a connection with Caleb and the audience doesn't quite know where the film is headed, but the film has an overall sense of doom and gloom: something bad is definitely coming. Nathan is an interesting character – he's obviously intelligent but has serious flaws which are easily exploited by Caleb who suspects there's something Nathan isn't sharing with him. To say anymore would do a disservice to the viewer.

Garland has made a stunning first film. His bizarre sci-fi touches, which he's injected into all of his projects from 28 Days Later to Sunshine are clearly present. He's obviously heavily influenced by films that came before it like “Blade Runner” and the aforementioned “A.I.” The film is a simple one: one setting, few characters, not much action, but it's slower pace is a purposeful and suspenseful build up. It has interesting characters with great performances and truly spectacular visual effects. This is a great modern sci-fi film and anyone who's a fan of the genre would be doing themselves a favor by checking out this stunning movie.GRADE: A-

Theatrical Trailer for Ex Machina on TrailerAddict.

The A Team: Marvel is at it Again in “Avengers: Age of Ultron

 The arrival of “Avengers: Age of Ultron” brings mixed emotions within me. I'm happy to report that the film is completely solid and entertaining. It stands up with other great Marvel adventures (though not quite as good as Guardians or Winter Soldier) and yet I can't help but feel a bit of comic book movie fatigue. Though moments after watching the film I realized that until Marvel delivers a complete and utter trainwreck of a film, what they're doing is actually pretty great. With so many films in such a short period of time they do begin to blend together but as each one shows itself in the local multiplex they consistently prove their worthy of being a worthy and entertaining entry in a canon of films unlike anything anyone has really seen before.

Overall, I really did like “Avengers: Age of Ultron” even if I didn’t quite get every moment of it. Because of this “cinematic universe” the film really does rely a lot on what you've seen before and that extends beyond the theater – Marvel has two TV shows airing on ABC, neither of which I've watched. Anyone expecting continuing plot elements from the shockers in the second Captain America film will likely be disappointed. The film opens with a battle with the superheros battling the Hydra organization, and after Tony Stark's Ultron defense system goes self-aware and hell bend on destroying humanity are soon whisked away into hiding where they recuperate and strategize. It seems in the ensuing battle Hulk goes on a rampage (obviously) and the public isn't too pleased with the mayhem. I'm not sure I quite get the Hulk's role in this group but I digress.

There are other specific plot elements about glowing CGI stones and a random romance between Natasha (Scarlett Johansson) and Bruce (Mark Ruffalo) the former of which will become even more important down the road. Finally Thor (Chris Hemsworth) describes the “infinity stones” to the group and tells of their importance. The real highlight here however is how large a role Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) have here as this feels more like an Iron Man or Captain American sequel more than anything. I've never personally had much interest in the S.H.I.E.L.D. organization and since being overrun by Hydra there isn't much screentime devoted to it.

And what of the many new characters writer/director Joss Whedon has given us? They're all pretty solid. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) are initially on the side of the evil robot/humanoid Ultron (voiced by James Spader) but we all know they eventually join the Avengers, right? One of the more interesting developments includes the introduction of “Vision” who sounds exactly like Tony's AI companion JARVIS and for good reason. Whedon's script surprisingly balances the new characters, older characters in a surprisingly funny (the gang trying to pick up Thor's hammer is a standout) and action-packed film that never feels overlong.

There's a lot going on in “Avengers Age of Ultron” and it sometimes feels like a buildup to something even greater but it never really feels bloated and never outstay its welcome. I enjoyed the first Avengers film back when it was first released but never found myself going back to it. This one feels different somehow, though it never quite feels transcendent. It doesn't quite reach the level of “Guardians of theGalaxy” or “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” but fans of all the Marvel films in general won't be disappointed.  GRADE: B+  

d

Feature Trailer for Avengers: Age of Ultron on TrailerAddict.

They Came Together: Indie “It Follows” is Overall a Creepy, Stylish Thriller

“It Follows” is one of the more original horror films to be released in some time. Though is anything truly original these days? Of course not. It's obviously influenced by past classics such as “Halloween” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and even a bit of of “The Ring” thrown in. It wins points for sheer style and its overwhelming urge to be a tribute to great horror films that came before it. It features a synth-heavy 80s film score, 70s style camerawork, and a clever premise with some decent frights and good tension. It turns out that horror films with simple but effective premises are the most successful and "It Follows" fits the bill.

The film stars Maika Monroe, coming off the similarly retro “The Guest,” as Jay who seems like a normal girl. She's close with her sister, has some close friends, and is dating an older guy and she'd ready to take it to the next level. Everything seems perfect until she finds out that this guy just passed along a curse that is passed through sexual activity. Remember how the slasher films of the 80s basically insisted that after having sex you have to die? This is literally the premise of “It Follows.” It seems that once you're “inflicted” some kind of supernatural force follows you until you die. Moral of the story? Keep it in your pants, kids.

Jay doesn't know if she's just crazy or if there really is some evil being following her. She gets help from her friends, and the guy across the street who appears to suspiciously resemble young Johnny Depp, who also lived across the street from the heroine of “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” Jay even sees a person staring at her while she's in class ala Laurie in “Halloween.” The film is an obvoius ode to these older films just take a listen to that retro soundtrack provided by Disasterpiece that wouldn't be out of place in an early John Carpenter film. Even the film's unknown setting feels very much like it's set in the past (which I assume it is, though Jay's friend uses a deceivingly futuristic touchscreen reading device in a clam shell, just one of the film's many mysteries). The young cast is pretty decent and likable even if they're not all that memorable; at least they seem relatively real.

I really enjoyed the retro feel of the film, which like the must-see “House of the Devil,” feels like part of a new group of modern indie horror films that defy genre classification. It also helps that the film is decently creepy and wholly atmospheric. I even jumped a few times. The pace sort of meanders a bit in the second half and I can't say I agree with some of the choices some characters make but otherwise I rather enjoyed “It Follows.” I like and appreciate what writer/director David Robert Mitchell has given us. It's obvious he understands and enjoys the genre and wants to give fans something they haven't quite seen before, even if it's a little rough around the edges. He does seem to care about music cues and overly stylized camerawork than about writing memorable characters but that's to be expected. At least he also cares about his film being scary. “It Follows” doesn't quite feel like a game changer the way “Scream” was nearly twenty years ago, but this usually under-appreciated genre is at least heading in the right direction.  GRADE: B

  

Trailer for It Follows on TrailerAddict.

In Her Shoes: Disney’s Live Action “Cinderella” is Elegant and Charming

There’s not much in “Cinderella” that you haven’t really seen before and that’s probably one of the film’s strengths. Even if it loses points for originality, it just seems to do everything right. Far removed from the garish visuals and questionable plot elements of other live action Disney properties like “Maleficent” and “Alice in Wonderland,” this new cinematic “Cinderella” doesn’t alter much from it’s animated classic counterpart. After all, it’s a classic story, so why mess with it? If anything, it improves upon the Disney classic by fleshing out the characters and story a little more. And finally the relationship between Cinderella and the prince doesn’t quite feel as “oh I just met you and now I wanna marry you” creepy.

Our live action Cinderella is played by Lily James and she’s perfectly fine in the role if not particularly outstanding. The real selling point, in terms of casting, is obviously double Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett as the evil stepmother Lady Tremaine. She’s perfectly cast and surprisingly restrained in the role, no performance here is as over-the-top as the lavish costumes. There’s not much that can be said about the film’s plot because it’s possibly the most well-known Disney story of all time. Cinderella is practically forced to be a servant in her own home by her mean stepmother and ugly stepsisters. However, since Cinderella is so kind her fairy godmother shows up and gives her a beautiful gown to wear to the ball where she meets the prince, and there’s a pumpkin carriage and glass slippers etc. However, here Cinderella actually meets Prince Kit (Game of Thrones’ Richard Madden) before the ball where he’s quickly smitten. The two share more screen time then I’d ever imagine and so for the first time you actually feel like these two characters might actually be meant for each other.

Director Kenneth Branagh, who is no stranger to staging period pieces and costume dramas, actually works wonders with the material. The scenery and costumes are top notch as are the well-integrated visual effects (mostly the CGI animals). And the transformation scene is pretty magical in fact. The script was written by Chris Weitz who, with Branagh's assured direction, ground the entire story in a magical reality. Sure Cinderella seemingly has conversations with computer animated mice, but it somehow actually works on screen. He also gives Prince Kit more time for the audience to get to know him. After all, the story of Cinderella doesn’t quite work in a post-feminism world but somehow it all works as best it can. I wouldn’t call the movie a woman’s empowerment film by any means but when Cinderella does finally confront her stepmother you can’t help but think “You go girl!”

Does this new Cinderella need to exist? Not really. Especially since we got the fun and cheeky musical “Into the Woods” just months ago. With the current state of live action Disney films becoming popular it was destined and since it does exist I’m at least glad to know that it’s as good as it could have been, if not exactly the belle of the ball.  GRADE: B+