Palm Springs [Hulu]

This was a genuinely funny (some great laugh out loud moments), light and frothy rom-com that would have been an excellent Summer escapist film. But now, as we are all more or less stuck in quarantine, this film has added a layer of ironic realism to its existentialism leanings. Thankfully, philosophy and quantum physics were not its priority, instead its focus was on the fantastic chemistry between its two lead - Andy Samberg (who was the right amount of cringiness here) and Cristin Milioti (she of the wide-eyed, not-so manic-pixie foil). 

Written by Andy Siara and Directed by Max Barbakow, this was a trim and unfussy 90 minutes film that held your attention from the beginning to the end. But to me, I wished it ended 2 minutes earlier, that would have been perfect. The epilogue and the mid-credits scene kinda lost a bit of the magic spelled by the preceding 88. Nonetheless, kudos to Barbakow for daftly balancing comedy, romance and existentialism without nary missing a beat. The tonal shifts from fun to dread to wonder to drama to contemplative to hopeful and back to fun again were done very well.

Samberg - reminiscence of Jesse Eisenberg from Zombieland - was a great casting choice. He has the earnesty and sincerity that made him relatable, and also a great timing for comedy (see Brooklyn Nine-Nine). Although, thankfully, Barbakow managed to rein him  an we barely had much slapstick schtick or cringey expressions of frat-humour.

Milioti was a great foil for Samberg, and her journey was a delight to follow. Her transformation through the stages of grief was extremely fun especially as she worked through her denial and anger before arriving at acceptance.

J.K. Simmons played a small but pivotal role and it is hard to see any other actor inhabit this role. Maybe Christopher Walken? Or Sir Ian McKellen? You get the type. 

My only real gripe was the ending. I wonder if the studios had anything to do with it or was it Siara's, or Barbakow's, plan all along. 

Another gripe will be the lack of representation in the film. We have the one token Black actor and the one token Asian guy. It was also a definite fail on the Bechdel Test. And the LGBTQ angle was played for laughs. Gotta work harder, Hollywood.

Nonetheless, this was a great 90 minutes escapism. It brought the laughs and the awwww-shucks, and could be a long shot for an Original Screenplay nomination.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters [IMAX/3D]

This film was the definition of bad writing, illogical plotting, over-acting - on top of bad acting! - and  terrible directing, but if you go in expecting all that, accept it and then embrace it, the monsters will make it worth it. The kaiju fights were spectacular, loud, exciting, dynamic - if only a touch messy (which could also have been aggravated by the 3D-induced dimming) - and actually satisfying. Take away the distracting humans and their nonsensical, boring storyline, cut the running time by 20% and it might actually give Pacific Rim: Uprising (not the original!) a run for its money.

Michael Dougherty directed and co-wrote Godzilla: KOTM and maybe they should have let Gareth Edwards, who directed the 2014 Godzilla, continued on the franchise. Dougherty, and his cinematographer Lawrence Sher, had some great shots, especially when they go wide, but otherwise, his penchant for extreme close-ups were bordering on comical and ridiculous. He ain't no Barry Jenkins.

And as the director/writer, there should absolutely be no excuse for the total disregard for logic and sensibility on translation from script to screen. Furthermore, it was inexcusable to execute, and edit a film, to the point where the suspense of belief becomes so stark that it takes the audience out of the experience.

There really was no reason why we should be interrupted from a massively entertaining kaiju fight to indulge in some hollow, over-wrought, predictable, badly written and over-acted excuse for human drama.

Which then brings us to the actors.

Kyle Chandler is a treasure, but it seems that his talent may be more suited to the small screen than the big. This was possibly one of his worse acting showcase ever. He deserves a Razzie for this. Absolutely over-acting in every scene and moment, with nary an ounce of believable emotion. Come on, this is the guy that gave us Coach Taylor! He deserves way better than this.

Then we have Vera Farmiga. She got lost after Up in the Air, was briefly shining again in Bates Motel, but after that series ended, she seemed to have gotten lost and misplaced again. What a waste of another talent here. Although Farmiga did not overact, and did her best with the material, her character was too thinly written for her to really sink her teeth into.

Lastly, of the main cast, was Millie Bobby "Eleven" Brown who simply reprised aspects of her Stranger Things character. Also, her character just make narrative - rather than logical - choices. Why?!

Asian superstars Ken Watanabe and Zhang Ziyi were relegated to supporting roles that served purely as expository vehicles. But the former at least had a more defined purpose, whereas poor Zhang was relegated to the now-ubiquitous, token China actor. Worse still, a scene with her and Chandler at the end of the third act was so painfully misogynistic that it actually felt rude - bordering on vulgar - and should put Dougherty on every feminist's blacklist.

And, are we seeing a trend here about the female characters in this film? Female actors take note.

Oh, and Sally Hawkins too (not going to say much here...cos spoilers). Just because Aisha Hinds is a colonel and leading the military charge does not make everything else right.

Bradley Whitford and Thomas Middleditch brought the laughs - more like sniggers - and Charles Dance brought some English villainous flare. The pay checks definitely helped.

But the stars of the film were really Godzilla and King Ghidorah. Godzilla definitely had more screen time here than in Edwards' original, and ironically that film's problem was it spending too much time with the humans. And King Ghidorah truly did look and feel scary.

The CGI effects were great and made it worth watching on the big screen. If it was filmed for IMAX it would have been even more spectacular. Coupled with Bear McCreary's propulsive score, the fight sequences really stood out. They were exciting and involved. But then, once we cut to the human drama sides, the large difference in film quality was even more painfully obvious. We really did not care for the humans.

So, in short, this film was not really worth the IMAX or 3D extra, but if you are looking for something silly and brainless but loud and entertaining, Godzilla: KOTM will be worth a watch. Do stay till the end for a post-credits scene!

Ant-Man and The Wasp

This film is unlike any other previous MCU films and that is a double-edged sword for the audiences, it was more of a straight-up action-comedy rather than an action-comedic superhero film. For one there was no clear villain and the characters that served as the main antagonists were so badly written and fleshed out that they were really just time-fillers for the A-plot.

Regardless, AM&TW was an enjoyable film albeit its predictability, lack of emotional complexity (or even plot-complexity) and absence of any conflict of worth. But where it succeed was in its actors - the effortless charisma and easy chemistry of both Paul Rudd and Evangeline Lily - and the comedic chops of its supporting cast, especially Michael Peña, and Judy Greer, Bobby Canavale and Randall Park. It was fun watching the cast interact and that helped the 118 minutes move along.

Some of the action sequences by repeat director Peyton Reed were visually exciting and he definitely used 3D and VFX to good effect here. However, this film still paled to the first instalment which had heart, great laughs, and an effortless energy in the story-telling which was so lacking here. Edgar Wright's and Joe Cornish's influences are greatly missed.

Rudd is the star of this franchise. His effortless charisma helped connect the audience to his story. The only thing is that this film was marketed as Ant-Man and The Wasp, and although Lily is ostensibly the co-lead, her emotional arc is lacking despite doing lots more butt-kicking. And this had nothing to do with Lily who was equally charismatic on-screen and had good chemistry with Rudd. Maybe they ought to have a female writer amongst all five of the credited screenwriters. And this has nothing to

Peña again stole the film like in the first and he is definitely a side-kick worth recurring.

Michael Douglas added gravitas to the franchise and it is hard to tell if he is enjoying this role or not; and Michele Pfeiffer really needs a better comeback film ASAP after this film and Murder on the Orient Express. Laurence Fishburne deserved better.

And again, the music and cinematography here were both serviceable and forgettable.

One of the best scenes of the film was actually the mid-credits scene (and that is saying a lot). The post-credit scene was good for a chuckle.

IMAX was not really necessary for this, but 3D was fun.

In the end, AM&TW felt like a place-holder in the larger context of the MCU, but for what it is, it was an alright film - fun and entertaining enough for a summer, popcorn flick. If it did not have the Marvel weight hanging off it, this could have been a really good, almost Edgar Wright-esque action-comedy film.

Spider-Man: Homecoming [IMAX 3D]

As a second reboot, Spider-Man: Homecoming had a lot stacked against it, but what Marvel/Sony had wisely chosen to do was to steer away from the over-trodden origin story and instead focused on the growing pains of a being (super)hero. And also casting Tom Holland in the lead. With Holland, the MCU had hit another gold mine in casting like what they had with Robert Downey Jr. That being said, the film itself, unfortunately, was a mid-tier entry in the MCU. It was fun, enjoyable and entertaining - everything one would expect from a Marvel-film and a summer popcorn release. However. for all its quips and maniacal energy, it lacked the kinetic and effortless humour of Ant-Man, The Avengers (both parts) and Guardians of the Galaxy (part one only), and also the thrilling excitement and adrenaline-pumping actions of the first two Tobey Maguire/Sam Raimi's Spider-Man movies and Andrew Garfield/Marc Webb's first The Amazing Spider-Man.

Jon Watts' direction was apt and competent, but his storytelling felt simplistic and lacked urgency. Partially it could be the invisible strings of the Marvel Studio at work as the film worked best when the story was simply focused on Peter Parker instead of trying to tie it neatly into the vast, money-making franchise that is the MCU. Perhaps because this is a co-production with Sony, but that integration had never been more apparent and jarring. Watts will likely be invited back for the sequel since he did complete the film without being fired (see Rouge One and the young Hans Solo film).

The army of credited writers could have also been a factor in the haphazard nature of the film. With so many voices, it was not surprising that the screenplay did not come across as entirely coherent.

Watts' ability was also lacking in the action sequences. There were not any big, exciting fight scenes nor were there any little, fun sequences (who could forget Maguire deftly saving his lunch in his first film? Or the epic, train sequence with Doctor Octopus?). So that was a real shame.

Luckily, we had Holland. For one, he looks and acts appropriately like a teenager. More so than Maguire or Garfield. Outwardly, he was a perfect balance between Garfield's dorky likability and Maguire's bumbling earnestness. He could also pull off the snarky, snippy, motor-mouth quips that the comic-book Spider-Man is known for. The show is built around him and revolves around him and it shows. However, his chemistry with the rest of the cast was weak at best and this was also perhaps due to the shadows cast by his predecessors. Holland and Marisa Tomei's Aunt May felt more like an Aunt-Nephew relationship than a close knitted one that it is supposed to be, unlike Maguire and Rosemary Harris or Garfield and Sally Field; Holland and Laura Harrier (as love interest Liz) did not had much chemistry, unlike Garfield and Emma Stone; Holland and Jacob Batalon (as best friend Ned) kind of lacked the depth and over-familiarity that was so strong between Maguire and James Franco. Maybe the next film, they can focused on rounding out Peter's character.

Michael Keaton's Vulture/Adrian Toomes was the rare superhero villain that was actually genuine sympathetic. Sure. Keaton can be scary as hell, but at least Watts et al tried to make his character less flat with proper "motivations" and purpose that was not all about death and destruction. That one scene in the car between Keaton and Holland was the best piece of acting from both parties and in the whole film.

Of the young cast. only the other big-named star - Zendaya - stood out. Mainly because of her character's enigma and nonchalant attitude.  And her character does not really revolve around that of Parker.

RDJ in small amounts is good.

Jon Favreau's Happy is the new Agent Coulson, the (cheap) glue to the franchise.

The other best casting was that of Jennifer Connelly aka Karen aka "Suit Lady" aka Mrs Paul Bettany aka wife of Vision aka wife of J.A.R.V.I.S. How meta!

Music was by Michael Giacchino and his output has been getting disappointing. Previously an exciting and innovative composer, now most of his recent scores had been for franchises and they have been generic and uninspiring.

The mid-credits scene was a great nod to the character involved. And the post-credits scene was a great gag/laugh.

3D was fun, as expected what with the web-swingings; IMAX was great but not really necessary.

Here's hoping Holland doesn't lose his way (remember The Impossible, The Lost City of Z and Billy Elliot).

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

A fun - and funny - film that lacked the urgency or the narrative drive of the first film, and despite the humour it was still, unfortunately, predictable and shallow. James Gunn may have great vision, especially in the cosmo-building of the MCU franchise, and an eye for imageries and great but as a director, and writer, he lacked depth, subtlety and the nuances. And therefore, this sequel will surely be a hit. 

The other thing that Gunn got right was the unabashed embracing of the utter cuteness that is Baby Groot. There cannot be too much of BG, and Gunn got that right. He even had a character voice that sentiment right out (see above re: lack of subtlety). Lucky BG is the definition of cute, although there were brief moments when it was dragged on a wee bit too much. But nonetheless, did I mention how cute BG is? 

And on the other spectrum, Gunn got the music so wrong this time wrong. Unlike the first film where the awesome music was organic to the story, this time round, almost every single kitschy music felt shoehorned in and contrived. Gunn took whatu was good in Vol. 1 and just ran amok with that idea with nary a thought to how it fits in. 

Then in between we have the titular Guardians. Sure, each actor were well suited to their character and they all have that familiar chemistry of a well-gelled cast. However, we barely got to know them any better this outing than the last. Gunn chose plot over character development and it was not as if GOTG2 had much to do with "The Infinity Wars". And as much flak as Joss Whedon got for "Age of Ultron", at least it advanced the characters that we are supposed to care about. 

Speaking of Whedon, Gunn's bantering still has not improved much. And, personally, I find Drax's attitude and quips about newbie Mantis bordering on misogynistic, even in spite of Drax being Drax and always so literal. Once or twice (to drive home a character point) was fine but continuing to do so despite admonishment was just poor taste and gagging for cheap laughs.

And that was another major problem with Gunn's writing. A lot of the humour were cheap. Cheaply earned and cheaply executed. A running gag (again see Whedon) only works well if it is not too on the nose and the audience do not see it coming a few beats, or even scenes, away.  

Then we have the villain. This time round the MCU gifted us with an amalgam of their previous Big Bads. An almost-amorphous gaseous/non-solid/energy-composite being that just want to destroy the world. I really think that after "The Infinity Wars", the MCU might want to do more films on a smaller scale. That was what made the Captain America and Iron Man franchises such bigger successes than Thor or GOTG. 

The old cast members were all solid in their roles but were kept apart far too long. It was their chemistry in the first film which helped elevate it and over here, although apparent in the beginning was lost in order to build new interactions. Some worked, like Rocket and Yondu, while others did not, looking at you Gamora and Drax. 

Zoe Saldana had much less to do in this film than the first and so it was hard to root for her and Chris Pratt's Peter. The barely had moments to develop much chemistry to speak (hah!) of. Gamora's relationship with Nebula (poor still barely recognisable Karen Gillan) was actually more interesting especially if given a chance to develop. 

A word about Pratt. He has gotten him is schtick as the adorable asshole down pat. But as a hero, or even an anti-hero - heck! or an unwilling hero - he still lacked that screen gravitas and charm. 

Also, the decision to have Mantis portrayed as she was in the film was in very bad taste. Mantis looked Asian - almost manga-ish - and is portrayed by Canadian-born Korean/French-Russian actress Pom Klementieff which is all good and fine, but must she act and speak like that? Almost like a bad caricature of a Japanese manga character.

Of all the new additions, Elizabeth Debicki was the best cast. And I really hope she will be back for GOTG3. Michelle Yeoh and Ving Rhames were surprise cameos and looks like they will too be back with the mysterious Sylvester-I-eat-my-words-Stallone in the next outing.  

Tyler Bates did the scoring and there were moments that I wished we had more of his scores than the bad song choices. Henry Braham lensed the film and he helped to gorgeously bring some of Gunn's visions to life. 

GOTG2 suffered from the usual sequelitis that affect so many projects, especially superhero franchises. Find what worked the first time and amplified it. Sometimes it worked (Groot) and sometimes it doesn't (the music). But always just distract the audience with more. More characters. More explosions. More at risk. More...more...more money. 

Ant Man [IMAX/3D]

An enjoyable film and a decent addition to the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, with a charming turn by Paul Rudd and great use of 3D-effects, but marred by the ghost of Edgar Wright (and Joe Cornish) and a general uneven-ness in terms of tone and characters.

As an origin story, the basic structure was there. Director Peyton Reed brought us from Point A to B to C and D smoothly and there were enough humour within to make this a sort of Marvel's Ocean Eleven. Reed's action sequences were also entertaining enough although nothing too mind-blowing.

But the biggest problem was that Wright's fingerprints could still be seen through Reed's gloves and the glimpses of Wright's DNA leave Ant-Man wanting.

Wright and Cornish have a very particular style and it peeks out at times in certain sequences, but these moments never really got to shine and hence it ended up giving the film a certain sense of uneven-ness.

Furthermore, Marvel's insistence to tie up every movie so succinctly with the greater MCU made it even more uneven, with certain parts of the film feeling like they were haphazardly mashed-up to give a whole. As much as we loved to see Hayley Atwell, John Slattery and Anthony Mackie, their scenes really ought to feel more organic.

I have a feeling Ant-Man will tie in very nicely with MTvU.

Adam Mckay and Rudd contributed to the screenplay, and it was evident with many of Rudd's lines. However, most of the people he played opposite with could not parlay with him as effectively. The only true standout was Michael Peña who owned his role and had great comedic timing with Rudd.

Rudd was great as Scott Lang, although his backstory should have been more developed. But Rudd had the screen charm and that handsome-ish yet rouge-ish and boy-ish charisma to play a thief-turned-hero. He is likeable but yet serious. And of course he wrote his own lines and was able to deliver the one-liners as they should be. That's an advantage right there.

Michael Douglas as Hank Pym was a disappointment. Douglas had no connection with his character and as the dead-panned one opposite the goofball Rudd, Pym was just boring. He and Rudd had no chemistry.

Evangeline Lily and Rudd were not much better. I wonder how Wasp would be like if Joss Whedon had got his hands on her. Her character was just as one-dimensional and predictable and boring.

(Whedon and Wright and Cornish should do a film together!)

Corey Stoll is on a roll ever since his turn on House of Cards. but here he was just another cookie-cutter, one-dimensional Marvel villain. And not even a very convincing one at that. Marvel either needs to gives us more complex villains like Daredevil's Kingpin (although granted a series does allow more time for character development) or more hammy ones like Ultron.

The Captain America franchises work well because they do not usually have a villain per se.

Again, the music - by Christoph Beck - was another decent MCU score.

The mid-credits scene was kind of expected. The end-credits scene, however, makes me excited for Captain America: Civil War!

At the end of it, I wished we could have gotten Edgar Wright's vision instead of Marvel's.

Minions

A funny, mindless animation with those loveable, hapless idiots that is clearly aimed at the young ones, although some jokes were obviously inserted in for the parental units/adults.

Stretched out to just over 90 minutes, the film started out strong - with a very spoiled prologue (that is why I hate watching trailers!) - but faltered a bit in the middle act but managed to regain its (still rather) uneven footing in the end.

The voice acting was unspectacular, with both Sandra Bullock and Jon Hamm, going a bit over the top; Michael Keaton, Allison Janney and Jennifer Saunders were better but pity did not have much to do; Geoffrey Rush was outstanding as the narrator - must be the Aussie accent - and was as good a choice as any if Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones were not available.

The minions themselves had a very entertaining language. And now that it is in full-length, you can really appreciate it more - and that's where a lot of the humour is from for the adults. Recognising the hodgepodge of languages that they bastardised from! Even Bahasa Melayu!

A good fun watch, and well worth the 90 minutes. Just do not expect it to be as deep as a Pixar animation. But entertainment-wise, it is there!

Oh, and thank you The Minions for brining the Banana Pie back to McDonald's (best thing EVER!)!

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Disclaimer I: I was spoilers-free for this movie. Minimal news, no trailers, no teasers, as blind as one can get in this day and age.

Disclaimer II: I watched this as part of an Avengers Marathon, so the first part was very fresh in my head which helped a lot.

The real star of this sequel is Joss Whedon. Specifically, his script. The Russo brothers are going to have a really hard time topping Whedon. And yes, there was no end-credits Easter Egg this time round.

This is a sequel that is simultaneously smaller (more intimate with closer focus on the core group and its dynamics) and larger than the first one (world annihilation! again...), and Whedon was absolutely brilliant and on fire here. As a writer, he really is incomparable. He has given us a masterful ensemble piece, but yet he does not forget that this is still a superhero movie and large action pieces are required. His script was filled with the right mix of drama, humour and pathos. Although the casual movie-goer might lament the lack of action and awe-striking images/sets/action.

Whedon is a master of the words, continuity and misdirection. He excelled in the group banter and catching the emotional crux of the moment between two characters. He serviced the fanboys and the critics. There were in jokes, jibes, quips and wit aplenty, not only self-referentially to The Avengers, but also to Disney, Buffy(!!), and the rest of Marvel.

Most importantly, Whedon brings you to unexpected places and that was key to keeping the movie's pace tight and the audience engaged.

However, despite all the above effusiveness, Whedon - and this movie - does have faults.

With such a large cast and a comparatively short running time, things/scenes/moments would definitely have to be cut. But for the more attentive audience that can be rather jarring. Characters would appear and then disappear, and you would wonder what they had be doing before they reappeared again.

As a director, Whedon excelled in the quieter moments. There were some good directing choices and it was excellent that the movie started in media res  and got into the main plot/action quickly, but the larger action sequences tended to be messier and the blocking rather problematic. The one-one-one combats were much better.

Although he did take a leaf from Innaritu's Birdman in that pseudo-one shot opening sequence.

As said earlier, Whedon is a master of misdirection, and kudos to that in his directorial skill. He also knew really well how to diffuse tension and undercut drama, but sometimes a bit too much such that we end up expecting a moment. Thankfully, there were more moments where such occurrences were unexpected which were great.

And ultimately this does feel more like a Joss Whedon movie than a Marvel movie.

Great job by Whedon in introducing the four new characters: Quicksilver, Scarlett Witch, Ultron and Vision. We actually do know them a bit better without sacrificing the core Avengers, and it is interesting how this time around, Whedon focused on those without their own franchise. That was refreshing.

A few words about the cast:

Robert Downey Jr has finally toned it down. He still gets most of the good one liners, but at least his characterisation is now less annoying and smarmy. I would like to think that this is more Whedon than RDJ.

Chris Evans sadly has less heroics to do here than in his own vehicle. However, Evans has now truly owned the role of Captain America.

Same thing for Chris Hemsworth, and he does get some much better lines here than in Thor.

Mark Ruffalo nailed Bruce Banner again, although his Hulk here is more enigmatic and sadly a victim of editing and running time.

Scarlett Johannson's pregnancy is too distracting. Although I must admit that Black Widow's storyline started off a bit too left field, but Johannson sold it.

Jeremy Renner finally had a much better storyline and way better lines. Definitely most improved character.

James Spader nailed Ultron. Ultron would never have worked if not for Spader. His delivery was spot on and possibly the next best thing to Whedon's words. Although as a villain he was thin with his machinations and motivations swept under for wisecracking mania.

Paul Bettany as Vision remained an enigma, and no doubt will play a bigger role in future.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olson had the strangest pesudo-Russian accent. Olson had the stronger character but Taylor-Johnson had the better lines. Their back stories would have been rather interesting to explore. Although they are now enhanced rather than mutants, so their powers have been tweaked a wee bit.Taylor-Johnson's Quicksilver is more rounded here than in X-Men: Days of Future Past, but there was not a standout moment for him unlike in X-Men.

Hayley Atwell was a sight for sore eyes. Cobbie Smulders and Samuel L. Jackson resumed their roles, although that would be interesting for the series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD. 

Marvel really needs to invest more in better music and cinematography. Brian Tyler and Ben Davis were good but there really wasn't anything spectacular or outstanding.

As usual there was a mid-credits scene, but nothing at the end this time round. No spidey.

This movie would definitely be worth watching it again after the initial hype has died to better appreciate the script. I lacked the surprised, untested, unknown magic of The Avengers and it has its expectations laden against it, but in the end, this is a brilliant character ensemble piece with one of the wickedest scripts in Marvel's history.

IMAX is worth it but not really necessary. 3D is optional.

Guardians of the Galaxy [IMAX/3D]

Marvel and James Gunn have on their hands a new space-movie franchise. This was a fun, enjoyable ride that would definitely appeal to the majority of the public as evident by my audience's response. The two best elements were the awesome 70/80s mixtape playlist peppered throughout and the incredible creature (and floral) design and directing of Groot. However, it does not really stand out amongst past Marvel movies and Gunn's voice can be best described as the poor man's Joss Whedon.

Gunn gave us an incredible introduction that quickly set the tone for the rest of the movie. However, other than the aforementioned playlist choices and Groot, nothing else really stood out in the remaining 100-odd minutes. What was lacking throughout was a strong emotional core to anchor the movie with the audience. Things just happen and get resolved. Our heroes do not really suffer any significant, damaging, personal, soul-crushing, emotionally tense setbacks. There were definitely enough action sequences and they surely will keep the action-fans happy. However, the sequences were nothing spectacular and the action choreography basic.

Gunn's script, co-written with Nicole Perlman, had its moments especially when the movie referenced 80s pop culture. However, the humour was on the broad side. Also, there were too many moments where Gunn and Perlman tried to capture that elusive Whedon-esque banter, and it just fell flat. Perhaps it was likely because the group was actually only two actors, 2 CGI creations and Dave Bautista. The banter here just did not work. And solely relying on Chris Pratt to deliver the humour will need him to be a stronger actor/comedian - and that is where Robert Downey Jr. succeeded brilliantly.

Then we have the characterisation of the core group. The First Act tried to establish that. Like above, it did not succeed very well. There was basic motivation but nothing deeper was explored to establish these bunch of renegades as true friends.

Pratt is a good comedic actor. On the small screen. Where he had a great array of comedic talents to work opposite with. Here, he was the sole (lead) comedian, and that responsibility was too much for his very-much buffed shoulders to carry. He lacked that self-depreciating vulnerability that would have made his character more human.

Zoe Saldana was a pretty face, even in green, and she did give her best shot to try to emote. But it felt like she playing the same character as she did in the 2 Star Trek movies. Heck, even the setting felt like a copy cat of Star Trek: Into Darkness.

Groot was the surprising scene-stealer. Not Rocket. I will admit that I might partially be biased against Bradley Cooper, but objectively, Groot's simplicity and emotive eyes were crowd pleasers. Kudos to the creature designs for both Groot and Rocket, and also definitely applause to the floral designer for that penultimate climatic scene.

Poor Lee Pace and Karen Gillan were barely recognisable under all that makeup. They were definitely hamming it up as the villains.

Lots of big names too throughout: Glenn Close, Benicio del Toro, John C. Riley, Djimon Hounsou and Josh Brolin but they are really just there to add credence to Marvel.

The score by Tyler Bates was unimpressive. Generic super-hero movie score. Marvel really needs to up its game on this aspect. Cinematography by Ben Davis had moments of cosmic, intergalatic beauty, but generally the lensing was also generic and run of the mill.

IMAX was definitely fun and the IMAX moments really popped. The 3D here was also more subtle and submissive but not necessarily a deal breaker.

Overall, a fun enjoyable movie for the masses, that brings the Marvel Cinematic Universe closer together and pulls slightly on the threads to make Avengers 2 and 3 an awesome reality.

Begin Again

Finally, a genuinely feel good romantic dramedy for the summer by writer/director John Carney who gave us the fantastically under-watched, under-appreciated Once back in 2007. The biggest problem here is that unlike in Once, it is the story that drives Begin Again forward and not the mostly forgettable songs (maybe except this, but more also because of the scene itself). The story and the moments are predictable but memorable due to the chemistry between Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo. Only Adam Levine was horribly miscast - boy, can't act.

Carney again uses music and songs to trace the emotional journey of his two leads, but sadly the music here failed to charmed as much as Knightley's British accent and Ruffalo's Brooklyn intonation. However, where music failed, the story became stronger with his two stars reminding us again why they are both Oscar nominees. The creative use of flashbacks and loops in the first act was refreshing. Then there was the always useful musical montage interlude which was fun. There is a sort of youthful, exciting energy here that can be rather infectious.

Knightley, especially, shone brilliantly here. It is refreshing to see her lose the corsets and embrace her modern vitality. Reminded me of her early years in Love, Actually and Bend It Like Beckham. She has a likability here that embodied her character's pragmatic naiveté.

Supporting cast Catherine Keener was subtly understated in her portrayal to great effect; Hailee Steinfeld is another young actress to look out for ever since her True Grit days; James Corden too is a talent to watch out for, let's see if he can translate a Tony Award to an Academy Award.

Levine cannot act. Even his singing is sometimes debatable.

A great summer counter-programming. Predictable but enjoyable. And definitely a new aw-shucks memorable Romantic scene for the record.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

For all his alleged legal woes, Bryan Singer sure does know how to steer this franchise continuing on the excellent ground work that Matthew Vaughn laid for X-Men: First Class and dovetailing into the Singer's own X1 and X2 (X3: The Last Stand is best to be forgotten). This was a comic book superhero movie made by a fan for the fans. But, having said that, it is not without his faults, but thankfully, what it lacked was entirely replaced by the serious amount of gravitas and star wattage that this ensemble has. And this is where this franchise will always rule over the Marvel and Avengers: Vaughn totally struck gold when he cast Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy and Jennifer Lawrence. Paired up together with the indomitable Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart, and throwing Peter Dinklage into the mix. The acting here elevates the movie beyond your standard popcorn summer fare (see Godzilla for a perfect contrast!).

Bryan Singer managed to capture the 70s era rather well with good authenticity and situational humour, and I liked how he found a way to bring a 21st Century fad - filming with your smartphone - into the 70s. That was a smart directorial choice. The pacing of the movie went along quite well and smoothly with only very occasional lagging, but that was saved by the phenomenal cast. Who can't see Stewart or McKellen read a phonebook for a few short minutes? Or Lawrence battling with self-doubt? Or Fassbender smouldering across McAvoy? In addition, a note must be made of the very excellent cold opening by Singer. That opening was stellar and had everything you would want from a comic-book superhero movie, and clearly set the story, the impetus and the ultimate motive for our heroes; and also grip the attention of the audience allowing them to know what was ultimately at stake (and how our heroes are desperately losing a battle).

Nonetheless. the story by Simon Kinberg, Vaughn and Jane Goldman, with screenplay by Kinberg, was also riddled with plot holes and illogical behaviours. However, Singer smartly overloaded your senses with visual effects and drama such that they just skim pass with nary a notice. Having praised this franchise over Avengers, this is where they will get knocked down a couple of pegs. Joss Whedon nailed the script. The banter and the dialogue here was boring, served no other purposes other than advancing the narrative, and bordering on pokey.

But after this, Whedon must definitely be feeling the pressure. Especially in one aspect that got my fellow audience applauding. How is he going to nail Quiksilver?? Evan Peters (of American Horror Story) simply stole the whole scene he was in. From what we have glimpsed of Aaron Taylor-Johnson in the end of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, those are going to be difficult shoes to fill. Pity that Singer and co. did not manage to include Scarlet Witch in, so for that, Elizabeth Olsen will be saved from comparison. Perhaps Whedon might be better off focusing on her rather than her brother in Avengers 2: Age of Ultron.

Hugh Jackman was the weakest link of the main cast. He's lucky he had already been established as the embodiment of Wolverine, so he just had to swagger a bit, growl and fight to advance the story.

The main stars are the three from First Class - Fassbender, McAvoy and Lawrence. Lawrence reminded me of her character from American Hustle, but she was so much better here than when she was Katniss Everdeen (Hunger Games). There's no doubt that Lawrence is a great actress, and she brought a vulnerability to Mystique that gave that character layers. Even underneath all the make-up and contact lens, she exuded self-doubt and conflict. Similarly, Fassbender managed to uncover a humanity beneath the veneer of superiority to justify Magneto's actions which actually makes his cause sympathetic and his behaviour possibly acceptable. Then we have McAvoy (that hair is way too distracting!) who had a different path - finding the humanity and hope that he once had when everything else around him had been destroyed.

Peter Dinklage - Tyrion Lannister - was also perfectly cast Dr Trask. Easily commanding his scenes, but sadly he did not have much interaction with the rest of the cast.

Of the old cast, other than Stewart and McKellen, only Ellen Page and Shawn Ashborne had slightly bigger roles. But the cameos from the rest sprinkled throughout were definitely worth it! (Spoilers Anything with Famke Janssen is instantly a lot better! End Spoilers)

John Ottman's score was appropriate but not a standout, and Newton Thomas Sigel's lensing had produced some gorgeous shots, but also none too outstanding.

Stay to the very end for the end credits for the next chapter of the franchise!

Captain America: The Winter Soldier [3D]

First off a gripe: I cannot believe that they are not showing this in IMAX in Singapore! Unbelievable! Shame on you Shaw!!!

A worthy sequel and entry into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) with ramifications throughout the existing cinema and TV franchises. Directors Anthony and Joe Russo have given us a political thriller that was tense, suspenseful and has broad appeal to both fans and the casual moviegoer. However, the film does not stand up very well both narratively and logically upon closer scrutiny and that, ultimately, was distracting to the overall enjoyment of this decidedly not-very-super superhero story (the "Honest Trailers" guys would have a field day!).

The Russos started the movie with the right tone: slightly serious with a touch of comedy and a hint of sentimentality. But that was also a problem. None of these aspects were fully realised. Partially this could be the fault of writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. The fish-out-of-the-waters jokes worked best as was the brief interlude into Steven Rogers and Bucky Barnes friendship. However, the episonage and political intrigue, which was the main backbone of the story, was not as tightly written. I can accept the "science" behind the science-fiction but the stakes were never really built up. The idea behind it was there and it was clear, but there was not any thing/event to expound that terror. Their action scenes were well choreographed, but their choice to seldom showcase the actors' faces decreased credibility. Through it all something was just missing, that little spark or gel to push it into awesomeness.

Markus and McFeely did a great job with the character of Steve Rogers. His characterisation was natural and evident, and there was evolvution but yet the core of what makes Captain America the symbol of heroism is not lost. Unfortunately not the same can be said of the secondary characters. Only Black Widow had some sort of character development (let's hope the rumours to her getting a spin-off are true). The others: Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Falcon and Alexander Pierce were kinda one dimensional. Although there were some throwaway lines to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (*SPOILER* Stephen Strange!!!!!!) but the lack of acknowledgement to Agent Coulson and the series was disappointing! 

Aside: *SPOILERS for ABC's Marvel's Agents of SHIELD* OMG! Could Melinda May be Hydra?!? (Although I think she's working for Fury) Is The Clairvoyant Zola or someone who knows the algorithm????

Another thing, and this could be a producer's fault, but many things happened off-screen. Is that to trim the show time (136 mins)? Or are they just keep stuffs for the DVD/Blu-Ray? That was very annoying!

I cannot imagine who else would be Steve Rogers after Chris Evans retires this role. Although physically he would easily replaced, but like Robert Downey Jr, he has come to represent the patriotic, earnest and honest Captain. Despite his pretty-boy face, he still has that honest-to-goodness, laddy-of-the-land look in his eyes. I guess Joss Whedon did not write a shirtless scene for him here like he did for Chris Hemsworth in Thor: The Dark World, since Evans kept his shirt on all the time. Throughout the movie, we have no doubt that he is the good guy and will do the right thing, but this makes us root for him to save the day although the morally ambiguous Fury and Black Window may make for more interesting characters. 

Speaking of which, Scarlett Johansson was quite good here. Most of the time we are left wondering about her and whether she has any other agenda. I liked that. And Johansson sold that very well. However, her character designer needs to be changed. Her costuming and hair were distracting, and this was not in a good way. Seriously!? What happened to the Black Widow from Iron Man 2 and The Avengers?

Robert Redford was a coup! A central villain who was believable. He convincingly portrayed this guy who had this radical idea of world domination. Yet, he never once reached into the depth of absurdity.

Samuel L. Jackson was rather restrained here compared to his other previous cinematic personas and that is good for us. Although, if the writers/directors/producers were braved enough they would have stuck to their original storyline instead of the expected twist at the end of the Second Act. 

Anthony Mackie looks like he's going to be Cap's new sidekick in the third instalment. Hopefully Stark Enterprise can give him some new wings. Although his on-screen alter-hero debut was a bit silly and lacked the necessary dramatics.

Sebastian Stan clearly has been working out, since he's the one with shirtless scene instead of Evans. His character needs more explaining, especially to non-fans. Hence from that point of view, he was poorly written. But therein lies the problem with the MCU: how to appease both fans and non-fans? For a movie that is subtitled to be about him, we learn surprisingly little about him.

Emily VanCamp and Cobie Smulders both make appearances, and I suspect both may appear in Marvel's Agents of SHIELD with the former likely to come back for the sequel too. Poor local boy Chin Han was nothing more than a glorified cameo.

The soundtrack by Henry Jackman was generic adventure. Why wouldn't Marvel spring for an awesome composer to score their music? Like what Hans Zimmer did for Man of Steel. 

Stay tune for that totally awesome mid-credits sequence, which like the first instalment links us to The Avengers (and it was directed by Whedon!). But that's not all, stay till the post-credits, for a hint of the third instalment.

3D was absolutely not necessary, and I think IMAX would have been awesome!

Saving Mr. Banks

Emma Thompson was robbed of her Oscar nomination for her complex portrayal of Mary Poppins' author PL Travers in this slightly schmaltzy and mildly draggy, but ultimately feel good movie. With a notable performance by Colin Farrell, the always reliable everyday-man Tom Hanks, a mostly smart/witty script and an upliftingly melancholic score by John Williams. For fans of the 1964 Julie Andrew's movie, some scenes will surely bring smile to the face.

John Lee Hancock directed a 2 hours long movie that took almost 1 hour to finally find its legs. The set up of the mystery as to why Mrs Travers was so reluctant to let go of the rights took too much screen time. That first half spent too much time making her to be a tough cookie, and the backstory took a bit too long to bring to the crux of the matter. Luckily, in the present we had Thompson, and in the past we had Farrell to anchor the stories and kept us engrossed as the plot meandered and wavered. Walt Disney was obviously scrubbed clean in a rather one-sided portrayal, but luckily he is not the focus of the movie.

The screenplay by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith was smart and witty at most times, except when they delved into the backstory where they started to lose focus. The spotlight kept wavering between the relationship of young Travers and her father, and the story of Travers herself. But the moments of foreshadowing and callbacks to the 1964 movie were smartly written.

Thompson was astounding and either Bullock or Streep should have been left out instead. PL Travers was written as a very complex character, and Thompson had to dig deep to discover her well of sadness and even deeper to find that seed of optimism. This complexity was conveyed expertly by Thompson in her subtlety, her furrowed brows, and her slight body language. Despite the winding script that took half the movie duration to finally find its legs, we are always interested in PL Travers' backstory and it's all thanks to Thompson's convincing acting.

Farrell was surprisingly good and gave one of his performances. An understated role that brought out the sentimentality behind Farrell's usual debonair, suave appearance. And it is thankfully for him that the backstory was tolerable and not overtly schmaltzy.

Hanks was his usual reliable self, but he had a couple of scenes which he stood out. Mainly when he was not playing a straight up vanilla good guy.

Rachel Griffiths was a pleasant sight, pity she was on screen too short.

John Williams' score was definitely oscar-worthy, but perhaps lost out to Gravity's Steven Price because there were some snippets that seemed to derived from the original movie. Nonetheless, the themes conveyed the hope and optimism buried within a melancholic strain with tinges of magic.

A good movie that pays off in the end after enduring a slow start, but worth it nonetheless for the very oscar-worthy performance by Emma Thompson.

Stay tune to after the credits for a little surprise that was hinted to in the movie itself.

Have a look at this BBC documentary to find out more about the true story of PL Travers and the making of Mary Poppins.

Pacific Rim [IMAX/3D]

Guillermo del Toro's epic Monster Aliens vs Giant Robots is a big load of fun and andrenaline pumping action, minus the Second Act which slowed down the whole pace and tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to develop the human characterisations and relationships. Del Toro's mind and fertile imaginations is amazing thing! The only drawback is the design of the creatures were rather repetitive and reminiscence of his monster from "Pan's Labyrinth". Nonetheless, it was an eye-popping, sfx visual extravaganza that deserved to be watched on a huge screen, but the 3D may or may not be necessary as most of the fight scenes were lighted rather darkly so the inherent dimness of 3D may make it murkier. The story by del Toro and Travis Beacham was simple and the sci-fi, unlike their Bad Robot contemporaries, was kept to the minimum. Sadly, the dialogue was mainly clunky, with many pseudo-Japanese English Zen phrases peppered throughout. The characters were stock, without much depth, and attempts at characterisations were mostly painful. The prologue set the world stage and the technology backdrop with a brief introduction to Charlie Hunnam's lead character (and that itself is all the characterisation you need of him). Only Idris Elba was outstanding. Sadly Rinko Kinkuchi was misused and miscast here, and her chemistry with Hunnam was barely there.  Charlie Day (very J J Abrams-esque) and Burn Gormann (tinge of Crispin Glover) provided the comic relief. Ron Perlman, a del toro staple, provided some good chuckles with his over-acting and he's in the end credits (stay back for it!). Strangely, it was Robert Kazinsky's antagonistic character that showed the most growth and who remained more memorable than lead Hunnam. Ramin Djawadi's rock/metal score was strangely appropriate but lacked the epic rousing of emotions; Guillermo Navarro's cinematography had some really beautiful, striking images and he really captured the starkness of the peri-apocalyptic future. One of the best scenes of the movie, which we really see del Toro's signature all over, was the brief backstory for Kinkuchi's character. That little girl acting was just right and del Toro's daft hand at defining the emotional core of the show really made that simple scene stood out amid all that carnage and destruction. This movie is not going to be for everybody, but for geeks, fanboys and del Toro's believers, this was a rollicking good ride that deserved to be savoured for its originality and audacity. There is art, opera, poetry and beauty in del Toro's mayhem, chaos and destruction. A pity about the human drama component. PS: I want to know why they thanked James Cameron,  David Cronenburg, Alfonso Cuaron and Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu. (and I found out: http://www.vulture.com/2013/07/pacific-rim-guillermo-del-toro-interview.html)

Update, 2nd Viewing: Went to watch the movie again, not because I loved the first one that much, but because I promised to with a friend. Anyways, this second time round was in a moderate size theatre and without the 3D. And with the plot out of the way, one can really appreciate the scope of the movie. Everything was massive and it looked massive! Kudos to del Toro for maintaining that size-awe ratio. The action sequences was amazing, and without the 3D, the lighting was brighter and more details could be gleaned. However, the 3D really did give it a sense of depth, urgency and impact during the Jaeger/Kaiju fights. In particular, the underwater scene lacked something without the 3D. The script was still flimsy, and the acting has not improved the second time round. But the standouts in this second viewing was the better appreciation of the sets, the Robots, the monsters, the music (damn! Djawadi's guitar/bass score is infectious!) and Navarro's cinematography.

Monster University [3D]

Disclaimer: I don't really remember much about "Monster Inc.". The concept was refreshing but the plot was not very memorable. So I went into this sequel not really expecting much.

An entertaining animation with some chuckles and laughs, and gorgeous design, however just a tad long and lacking soul. Pixar's initial years of producing revolutionary, groundbreaking animations with amazing technical skills and refreshing plots seemed to be over the moment they merged with Disney. The storyline here was rather straight forward with nary a curveball nor unexpectedness. It was clearly aimed at the general Disney audience and the younger ones, rather than cater to the ones that loved the first outing and were interested in the characters' backstory. Some sequences were entertaining but most of the laughs were from sight gags rather than sequences. Helen Mirren stood out as the voice of the main antagonist, however Billy Crystal and John Goodman were distinctive but not memorable. Similarly so was Randy Newman's score. 3D was not necessary at all. Even the short film, "The Blue Umbrella", attached to the start of the movie suffered the same fate: cute, interesting, but undeniably, had with it a sense of deja vu. Although the use of photorealistic animation was an eye-opener. But nonetheless, still a rather pale comparison to last year's Oscar winning "Paper Umbrella". Stay tune right to the end of credit!

Django Unchained

A fun and entertaining, quintessentially Quentin Tarantino movie that is typically more plot rather than character driven. Nonetheless, Tarantino has scripted a highly original screenplay and populated it with a cast of talented actors, it is just a pity that the characters are relatively one-dimensional. Tarantino may have a daft hand and mind to come up with brilliant stories, but like all his other previous features, e.g Kill Bill 1 & 2 and Inglourious Basterds, he fails at providing real depth to his characters and firmly establishing their motivation into the psyche of the audience. In particular, when it comes to romance he is just clumsy and clunky. Thankfully, his movies always have a very absorbing plot, memorable characters, some great lines, a superb soundtrack and panache. The supporting casts are all outstanding with some of the best work by Leonardo diCaprio and Samuel L Jackson. DiCaprio was easily one of the best thing about this movie, as he embraces his inner villain and goes all out in his evil cackle, shifty glinty eyes and OTT boisterousness; Jackson, on the other hand, made an interesting villain out of somebody that appeared so harmless, and he imbued that character with more cunning and fear than anybody else in the show. Christoph Waltz may have won the Best Supporting Actor for this role, but he, like Phillip Seymour Hoffman for "The Master", is really more a co-lead. Nonetheless, his performance was definitely one of the highlight of the show from  the beginning to the end, although his schtick tended to get a bit old towards the final Act. Jamie Foxx as the eponymous lead was a stone-faced character throughout, and it is so hard to really comprehend and understand his motivation: I mean I get it on a cerebral level, but not really emotionally. A throwaway scene in the middle of Act One, is really insufficient for me to care whether he gets to his goal in the end or not.  All these character flaws are where Tarantino is to blame, for he sacrificed characterisation for plot development. These are forgivable in the supporting cast, but even for the lead? As I said, at least what is happening on the screen is interesting enough to keep me entertained. And entertained I was, with the 165 minutes of showtime moving along at a great pace, and surprisingly this was a much less violent experience than his previous entries. Also, not much Singapore censorship detected. The excellent choices of music that Tarantino always have in his movies are also a pleasure to the total enjoyment of this revenge flick. He always had a good ear for the pop psyche. Directing wise was nothing special. There were a lot of wide-angled scenes and some creative shots, but all are part of his trademark and nothing new has been added to his repertoire that we have not seen since "Pulp Fiction" days. Stay till the end of credits!

Note: There are some serious themes and issues that are brought out by the movie which can be viewed both ways. I do not know which was the way Tarantino intended it to be, but he has given us an entertaining movie, and the lessons that we can learn from it - a Satire of Black slavery and White supremacy or a Cautionary Tale on White guilt, or just plain old Fight for the One your Love and Freedom is Equal, Equality is Free - is really up to us an intelligent audience to go figure out ourselves. Or maybe it is just simply Entertainment!

Wreck It Ralph

An entertaining kiddie animation that has some laughs for adults, tugs on the tear ducts and a slightly unexpected twist. It was just a tad too long. Other than a fun first third where we are introduced to the video game world and was quite a tickle to see these video game characters interact with each other "socially", the next two thirds was a bright, confectionary explosion of sweet, saccharine fun that was clearly targeted at children. Although some candy-naming laughs and an off kilter romance helped to ease the adult-audience's senses. Jane Lynch absolutely nailed her voice part and so did John C Reily. Reily's totally earnest everyday man's voice really helped to sell to emotional core of the story. I hope this is the future direction John Lasseter is bringing Disney animation towards. Oh don't miss the short animation at the start of the movie. "Paper man" is almost similar to the great Pixar shorts of all. Sweet love story without words but with an added dose of Disney magic. And just a little something at the very end. 3D may actually be quite fun for this...pity.

Rise of The Guardians [3D]

An entertaining, fun cartoon that will surely appeal to the children. Adults who do not mind escaping into their childhood fantasy will also find it to be a rather good way to spend 90mins or so. 3D definitely is an added bonus and should enhance the enjoyment. With Guillermo del Toro as one of the producers, there is some expectations for this animation. It was short and sharp, well-paced with a root-able hero(es) and a despise-able villain. It seemed a trend these days in animations to have cute, lovable, and memorable bit characters, and this one too does not disappoint. The most memorable characters are actually the ones that have no dialogue and main purpose is to incite sniggers, chuckles and a smile. It may appear slightly too messy and schizophrenic at times, and the cacophony of colours may be over-dazzling, but nonetheless, the animation was still excellent. The plot was simple and starts in media res, with little background provided, but that's not necessary since target audience are the young 'uns. Sure, objectively and logically there are some gaps, but for a fantasy animation like this, reality is meant to be checked at the entrance and the audience just got to let go and enjoy the ride. A very excellent score by Alexandre Desplat and performed by the London Symphony Orchestra which added layers to the ambience and elevated the scenes. Stay back for the credits for a short epilogue.

Argo

A definite crowd pleaser. It may get some critical love but I do not see it getting much Oscar love in the end. Although we have got to wait for the rest of the movies this year to decide on that. It may make it to the top ten movies. A great intro that supplied background and bring the audience into the situation, but the one big problem for this movie (especially for a non-American audience) is that we do not care about the hostages. The first act was good (how to rescue the hostages?); the second act was a drag (no empathy for the hostages); in the third act, Affleck and Terrio tuned up the tension with cheap (and meaninglessly dramatic) scenes, quick cuts, and Desplat's score. Ben Affleck sure has improved as a director in his third outing, but he tend to over-indulge in showy shots which do not really serve any purpose. However, his attention to historical details was laudable. Unfortunately, I do not think he is Oscar-nominating calibre yet. Furthermore, he should stop casting himself in his shows if he wants to excel more. Besides he is one of the weaker actors of the ensemble. I said it before, and I'll say it again, John Goodman's agent need a raise. He and Alan Arkin were easily the best moments of the show. Cranston and Garber are always reliable. The other big names were too briefly on screen for much impact. As aforesaid, the hostages were not sympathetic, not too hard to insert a scene tugging at the heartstrings. Sadly, I think this was also one of Desplat's poorest/least memorable score. Ultimately, a crowd pleaser that unabashedly turned a real life implausible event into Hollywood entertainment. Affleck is running the risk of turning into Eastwood, "The Town" could just be his "Iwo Jima".

Pitch Perfect

Passable Glee meets Step-Up mash-up with some mild laughs. A potentially strong first act that turned weak, a mediocre second and a third act that lacked the underdog triumphant climax. all bundled in a contrived excuse for a plot. A waste of the strong, young comediennes ensembled. It's sad when the funniest people are not the top billed ones, but the always reliable Elizabeth Banks and John Michael Higgins. Anna Camp and Brittany Snow were the best actresses of the bunch, but such a waste! Rebel Wilson had some good lines but her best were sadly after the end credits! As for Anna Kendrick, she's saddled with playing the straight girl. Sure, she's charming and cute and has cleavage, but her character is so boring. What a waste of an Oscar nominee! Her romance with Skylar Astin needs more work. It was strange, inorganic and rather unbelievable. As much as they like to diss "Glee", Ryan Murphy's gang had better songs, choreography and chemistry; Glee also better captured the zeitgeist. Jason Moore and Kay Cannon should have trimmed the movie by 10 to 15 mins.