Avengers : Age of Ultron Review

Avengers: Age of Ultron! It was super entertaining and really funny. I love the actors, I love Joss Whedon’s witty dialogue but this time around I also got a sense of impending doom throughout that I don’t get from too many super-hero movies. This is done without getting too brooding and mopey which I’m sure general audiences will appreciate. The story was a little simple (the robot wants to destroy the world). I was hoping for something a little meatier from this 11^th Marvel movie, but I guess they can’t afford too much narrative with all the characters they need to service.

Hawkeye fighting to be less lame.

And Joss Whedon does an incredible job with this gargantuan cast. It’s kind of awesome actually. He knows when to spend extra time with our favourites, like RDJ as Iron Man and Chris Evans as Cap, but he’s also able to give Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye some of the best moments in the movie. To my amazement, he really did run away with the ball in this outing, having the best character arc, the best scenes all while making fun of how comical it is for a guy to go into battle with a bow and arrow when his peers can level a city block in minutes. They did a good job developing Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) as well as newbies Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor-Johson)  and Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen, sister of Mary Kate and Ashley from Full House!). And that’s to say nothing of the handful of cameos that manage to add some emotional weight to some scenes without coming off as awkward fan service. I found myself less likely to get bored of a scene with the characters sitting around and talking than I was watching a scene where everything was blowing up. Who would have thought?

Avengers being cool.

The plot about Tony Stark’s artificial intelligence program going rogue runs along at a brisk pace. The movie’s villain, Ultron, is a robot that wants to destroy mankind, believing the extinction of the human race is the only way to bring peace to earth. It’s simple, it’s even a bit of a cliché but it works well enough. There is a lot to be said for execution and I found the scene where Ultron decides humans are too evil to survive was rather striking. Ultron, voiced and motion captured by James Spader, gets to exercise his comedic muscle just like everyone else in the  movie, sometimes to mixed effect.  I did find the humour was overdone in some scenes for all the characters. You can be in the middle of an intense action scene and Whedon will insert a corny joke into it, sometimes diffusing the tension.

It goes without saying the action was great, but it’s hard to get excited about action these days, isn’t it? What CGI scene could a computer produce that we haven’t seen a million times already? And what peril could possibly be dreamed up for our heroes that would actually cause us to fret with concern? The climax came out of nowhere for me. I was never entirely sure what Ultron was up to and when we finally got to his end game with a floating city it kind of blind-sided me. It felt like one set-piece after another until : “Oh, we’re almost at the 2 hour mark. Time to wrap things up!” And then the movie ends with a handful of rushed sci-fi/fantasy contrivances.

Are you not entertained?

These criticisms are offset by the movie’s devotion to pure entertainment however. I was either laughing or gawking at the spectacle for 2 hours and 20 minutes. What more can you ask? It’s also kind of fascinating to see how much this movie is a product of its time. I found it very funny how the movie dealt with the now controversial issue of collateral damage. In these super-hero movies, buildings topple over like dominos and we’re often left to wonder how many people were killed in the rubble. We’re usually not explicitly shown human casualties but in movies like Man of Steel which strives to be a “realistic” take on the character we can only assume lots of people die in battles like this. It ended up being one of the biggest criticisms of Man of Steel and some people pointed out that the climax of the first Avengers movie was not much better.

Enter Age of Ultron! Every time there’s a battle in a city our heroes will preface the pending destruction with a half-ass disclaimer. “Hey, we have to keep the casualties low!” But they still want to destroy buildings. So before levelling a building our heroes will say something like, “That buildings is empty!” or, “There’s only one family in that building, so it won’t be too much trouble to get them out!” (I have in mind one jarring scene where Iron Man flies people out of a collapsing building in a bathtub). Too many convenient and easy rescues seem like cheating to me, but it's better than nothing (is it?), I guess from now on big battles in a city scenes will always need to include a line that lets us know the people are okay.

Other moments that brought me out of the movie, despite how funny these moments were, is when they take shots at the lamer heroes’ powers. “Vibranium. The most versatile substance on Earth, and humans use it to make a Frisbee.” Referring to Captain America’s shield. “We’re in a floating city, fighting an army of robots and I’m armed with a bow and arrows. It makes no sense.” Hawkeye taking a jab at how lame he is. Has it taken 11 movies to finally become insecure about how ridiculous the super-hero genre is? It’s interesting and probably wise that Age of Ultron chooses to embrace its cheesiness instead of trying to dampen it. People did not respond well to Man of Steel which really did take itself too seriously in an attempt to give credibility to its high stakes plot. I enjoyed Man of Steel, but I have to say, acknowledging the implausibility of these movies with some light humour does seem to be the way to go. I just wish the Marvel movies didn’t always go as far as they do with the comedy.

There is no denying it’s a good time at the movies. I am constantly wary that this era of super-hero movies probably comes with an expiry date. But Age of Ultron assures us that it’s not anytime soon. The biggest praise I can lavish on this movie is it didn’t feel as repetitive as many of the other Marvel movies. It’s one of the rare occasions in the Marvel Universe where I feel like I’m on track for some new and interesting stories with Civil War and the Infinity War right around the corner. Age of Ultron was satisfying on its own and still managed to hook me with its sequel bait. Maybe I should wait for a second viewing before giving it a rating but for now it stands at a solid

7.5 casual detours to a foreign (and sometimes fictional) country out of 10

Post review rant : Anyone notice that all the cameos in this movie are the Black sidekicks from the other movies? Wouldn't it have been a great opportunity for Black Panther to have shown up in Wakanda to say, "I am no one's sidekick! But my movie has been pushed back to 2018 :-( #AvengersAgeofAfricanAmericansidekicks." Also, isn't it weird that Ultron's lips move like they're made of flesh? I don't know how I feel about that. Also, how come Ultron doesn't back up his consciouness on a USB stick or something? Did RDJ seem kind of tired in some scenes to you? Also weird, when Black Widow says, "They sterilized me when I was very young. Do you (Hulk) still think you're the only monster on the team?" Being sterile makes her a monster? She kills people.

How would I rate other super hero movies? Here’s a quick list off the top of my head.

Dark Knight - 9/10

Man of Steel - 8.5/10

Winter Solider - 8.5/10

Watchmen - 8/10

Days of Future Past - 8/10

The Rocketeer - 8/10

Iron Man – 7.5/10

Darkman - 7/10

Avengers - 7/10

Spiderman 2 - 7/10

Blade - 7/10

Guardians of the Galaxy  - 6.5/10

The Incredible Hulk - 6/10

Thor 2 - 5/10

Superman Returns - 4/10

Amazing Spiderman 2 - 2/10

The Nice Bucket Challenge

It should come as no surprise that people are criticising the Ice Bucket Challenge. Criticising is easy and about as much fun as pouring a bucket of ice over your head! Heck, I criticize everything all of the time. “Why are you even reading this blog post? Don’t you have more important things to do with your time? People are out there trying to cure cancer and you’re here goofing off online!” And in making other people feel bad, my brain releases a neurotransmitter, sweet dopamine, that makes me feel good about myself! (I have not read anything that says we get a dopamine surge from criticizing people, but let's just roll with it). Do people criticize the Ice Bucket Challenge to get their dopamine fix WITHOUT pouring ice water over themselves? Or are there some legitimate concerns about how we give our money?

It’s been called slacktivism. People are having lots of fun doing the Ice Bucket Challenge but, according to some, it’s doing far more to cater to people’s narcissism than it is doing to advance any cause. Harsh! Let’s talk about narcissism and charity for a second. There’s this old-fashioned idea that if you’re giving to charity you shouldn’t tell anyone about it. It’s such an old fashioned idea that Jesus said it! “When you give to the needy don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing.” There is some wisdom to that. There’s nothing more obnoxious than someone bragging about how much they do for charity. Of course drawing attention to a cause doesn’t have to mean you’re showing off either. Obviously there is a fine line between the two but it's obvious that in the age of social media, drawing attention to a cause is simply a great way to raise money for it. More money has been raised for ALS than has ever been raised in the past, humility be damned! So the question is, do you want to raise money for a cause, or do you want to be polishing your halo in private? Okay, that sounds kind of gross but … you get my point! The ends probably justify the means.

Of course this leads to the next criticism of the ice bucket challenge. “So few people suffer from ALS, why should we be raising money for them when so many people are dying from Heart Disease, Cancer, diabetes, starvation, drought etc….? Isn’t there a greater need elsewhere?” Doesn’t this sound like the same kind of argument people make when they complain about the space program?  “Why are we sending folks to the moon? There’s no oil up there or anything!” I don’t think science works like that. Sometimes working towards something like a cure for cancer helps scientist learn a bunch of stuff along the way. ALS is a disease where cells in the brain start to die off for reasons that are not completely understood yet. Don’t people think we’ll benefit from a better understanding of the brain? Won’t we be better off with the knowledge acquired by scientists who happen to write the word “ALS” somewhere on their grants? Think of all the scientists and hungry grad students(so hungry…) that money will fund in a world where research is heinously underfunded. You might be saying, “Well, what about Multiple Sclerosis? Far more people suffer from that disease than from ALS.” To you I say, “Please donate to charities that fund Multiple Sclerosis research.” Or whatever cause makes you feel good.

There have been claims made that people will actually give less to other charities if they do in fact decide to donate to ALS. You can almost see someone looking at their bank account, throwing their hands in the air and saying, “Well, looks like this year those orphans are plumb out of luck! ALS! WOOT!”  Are we over-estimating the effect of “funding cannibalism?” If this is an actual phenomenon, can we encourage people to give more generously or at least more carefully without turning a successful fundraiser into another reason to be cynical? People around the world have raised 100 million dollars to fund research toward one of the most horrible diseases on the planet. Good job people! What an accomplishment!

None of this is to say there aren’t some relevant points to be made about how we give (how much money and to whom). And I’m grateful to the critics who have opened the floor for discussion about charity. But let’s not harp on the negative without recognizing the positive. I love the idea that people can get turned on by compassion or motivated to do something compassionate if it’s attached to a fun meme. Let’s face it, at the end of the day, if we give to charity at all, we give to feel good and making a difference makes you feel good! (Sweet dopamine). Being goofy with your friends also makes you feel good! Can we give more intelligently? That’s a topic for discussion. Is ALS the best cause to give your money to? Well, I think that’s in the eye of the beholder. Just be generous and if your giving helps one person, or one million you’ve done something positive. And if you just like looking like an idiot on Facebook, that’s fine too. In a few weeks we’ll all be back to pictures of food, pets and selfies. No problem!  The best we can hope for is that the Ice Bucket Challenge will encourage us to be more generous in our day to day lives, even after this trend has melted into a cold puddle and evaporated.

Maybe it’s my imagination but the news has been utterly depressing these days. I’m not surprised at all that people have latched on so quickly to this fun, quirky little ritual.  Maybe you believe there are other charities that need more attention. Let your friends know about them. I've always been a bit of a cheerleader for bringing clean driniking water to developing countries and I'm far from the first person to see the irony in the fact that we have so much water to spare that we dump it over our heads for fun.



A few recommended charities.

https://www.als.ca/en

http://www.alsa.org/

http://plancanada.ca/sponsor-the-water-project

http://water.org/

Not to steal any thunder from those raising money for ALS. I’ll be donating to them as well.

One last point, there are probably a whole lot of people out there you don’t want to give your money to. Research your charities before giving your time and money supporting them. There are some nifty tools out there like Charity Navigator that will give you a rating for a lot of different charities, mainly based on how closely they meet their mission objectives.

Why the Transformers Movies Make Me Angry

What makes me angry is that Optimus Prime is such a memorable character that years ago, when one of our friends took another friend's Optimus Prime toy and made him stick up the middle finger, we all immediately said, "That's not right, he would NEVER do that. Optimus Prime is an honorable gentleman."

Then along comes Michael Bay and makes Optimus Prime some kind of degenerate psychopath. It makes me angry that the movies are based on a beloved cartoon made to sell toys to children, and that the cartoons are still far more intelligent than the movies. It makes me angry that these movies are so long. Why? Because longer movies can't be shown as many times in a day and therefore make less money. Which means that Michael Bay doesn't make the movies long for some financial reasons, he makes them long for... dare I suggest artistic reason?  Because he thinks we want to watch 3 hours of this???

A scene from Transformers 3.  What the hell are we looking at here???

It makes me angry that they try to be funny but they're not. It makes me angry that there are so many good movies, action movies even, that are soooo much better that no one bothers with.  It makes me angry that Transformer movies are racist, sexist, jingoist and stupid. But most of all, it makes me angry that the stories are so incoherent that you can only conclude that no one involved cares at all!!! And after all that, they still make billions of dollars, which means people actually like them!! So ultimately it makes me angry at the world.

Please stop watching these movies.

Man of Steel Review

If you're a super-hero nerd like myself, you have been anticipating Man of Steel for a long time and now that it's finally out you have either already seen it or you are wondering why the reviews for it seem to be so mediocre.  Having seen the movie I would have to say I'm slightly surprised by the stale response that critics had toward Man of Steel.  I was really into it.  Like all movies these days, it is impossible not to compare it to the slew of super-hero movies that have inundated cinemas for the past, let's say decade. Take this movie and release it 10 or even 5 years ago and it would have been one of the best things anyone has ever seen.  As such I can only conclude if you generally like super hero movies and don't like Man of Steel, it was for 1 of a few reasons.  Among them.

1) It wasn't Chris Nolan's Dark Knight Franchise.
2) It wasn't the Avengers.
3) Your standards for a movie about a guy who flies around in blue spandex are too high.

I'm not saying the movie was a flawless masterpiece, quite the contrary.  Just that it's a victim of it's own hubris and few movies could live up to the expectations that were placed on this Man of Steel movie.  I was never bored by it, except maybe during the last set-piece (more on that in a bit). The story was great and the action was for the most part fantastic.  Tonally, I would say it is somewhere between the brooding Dark Knight films and the action packed Avengers.  The movie was severely lacking humour though.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the movie wasn't the perpetual wise-cracking slapstick that was Iron Man 3. That wouldn't be consistent with the character.  But it didn't have to take itself as seriously as it did either.

It almost felt like 2 different movies. For the first 30 to 60 minutes, I was watching something spectacular.  The cinematography was gorgeous and it really drew me in.  It took its time telling a story.  This movie has Krypton like you have never seen it before, with eye-popping visuals, complex culture and politics.  They did a good job of giving us the Superman backstory without getting too bogged own in it.  It reminded me of Batman Begins.  They jump around in time so that you only get the information you need (though director Zack Snyder doesn't do it nearly as well as Chris Nolan).  By the time Clark Kent becomes Superman you're like, "Already?  Well, that was pretty cool."

And then, problems start to pop up.  The characters do and say things that don't make any sense.  Martha Kent's (Diane Lane) reaction to Superman saying, "I've found my people!" Was little more than a dry, "Good for you."  As if she couldn't care less.  Had I been Superman at that moment I would have been like, "Good for me...?  My people are aliens!  From outer space and I found them!  Our planet blew up, they're all dead!  Do you know what a planet is, Mom?  Also, I can freaking fly!  Mom?  Are you awake?"

Superman: "Mom, I'm from another planet that exploded and I'm the last of my kind."
Martha Kent: "Meh..."

You may have seen the scene in trailers where a young Superman, after rescuing a bunch of children from drowning in a bus, asks his father, "What was I supposed to do?  Let them die."  And a morally bankrupt Jonathan Kent played by Kevin Costner basically says, "Yes." Really??  The idea is supposed to be that Superman's adopted father is so worried that people will persecute Superman when they find out he's an alien, that he should keep his powers a secret, even if it means standing by and watching people die.  It gets a little strange.

"Clark... God clearly wanted those children to die. I know you have super powers but I don't want you going around saving people's lives!"

And then the ultimate sin of this movie comes in the last 45 minutes.  Non-stop, mind-numbing, senseless action.  There are times when the action is great.  But the final set-piece is way too long.  It was ALMOST as tedious to sit through as the ending of Transformers 2 and 3.  Buildings are crumbling to bits, Superman endlessly punches the villain, sending him flying through walls and even into outerspace.  At a certain point someone throws a train at Superman and then an orbital satellite which just made me laugh out loud.  It was overkill.  You'll hear this phrase in many reviews of Man of Steel.  "Less is more!"

Was the movie too melodramatic at some points?  Definitely.  But other times it was spot on.  Other times the action or the pacing just seemed off.  Other times it was perfect.  Henry Cavill's Superman didn't have great chemistry with anyone on screen from his parents to Amy Adams' Lois Lane.  I think he was trying too hard to be alien and otherworldly.  Sometimes it actually worked quite well in a scene, other times it was just creepy and weird. But there is no denying that he looks the part.

At the end of the day I would say, aside from a few misfires, it's a good movie.  After the origin story, which is as well known as the story of Jesus at this point, Man of Steel becomes an alien invasion story done sufficiently.  The invaders have history, and culture and motivation and are lead by a charismatic General Zod played by Michael Shannon who many critics feel was not in full form, but still very good.

The movie is inconsistent.  Its high points are incredibly high, and it's low points are jarring enough to take you out of the movie entirely.  But in many ways this is the Superman movie a lot of us have been waiting for.  Finally, he gets a worthy adversary!  The battle scenes in this movie are what has been missing from our Man of Steel all these years.

Time for an epic fight!  And by epic I mean long.

So, if you're a fan of Superman, comic books or the DC universe, I suggest you just roll with it.  Not all movies can be Dark Knight, or Avengers.  On the bright side the movie isn't Daredevil or Spider-man 3 either (yet).  Besides, we have tolerated all kinds of sub-par super hero movies.  When I think of Marvel's Thor, Captain America and Iron Man 2 as build ups to the Avengers, I would have to say that Man of Steel is at least as good or better than those, though it would have benefit from a little humour here and there. 

And, the good news is, with the success of this movie there is some hope that the DC Universe will finally find life at the cinema.  Justice League movie?  More Batman movies?  That's all us fanboys want.  So I choose to give Man of Steel a break and say it was enough that it wasn't terrible.  The plot held together relatively well, it was exciting and I was rarely ever bored by it..

3.75 choo-choo trains to the face out of 5

A few very minor spoilers.  If anyone has seen the documentary, "An Evening With Kevin Smith" you will probably remember his story about the brief time he was hired to write for the Man of Steel movie.  This was back in 2001 and he tells a great story about producer Jon Peters, who is in fact one of the producers of Man of Steel today. The story goes that Jon Peters insisted that Superman have a giant spider in it for no apparent reason and that polar bears guard the Fortress of Solitude.  Though Jon Peters eventually got to shoehorn a giant spider into the movie, Wild Wild West I think it's pretty clear that the World Engine is some kind of giant spider.  Also, there is a very odd shot of a polar bear early in the movie. Start watching at 5:18 for the Jon Peters story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vgYhLIThTvk#t=313s

Iron Man 3

Who will deliver the goods this summer?  Iron Man or Man of Steel?

I've been sitting on this review for a while, not quite sure if my opinion on it is set in stone.  Even while watching Iron Man 3 I went through periods of loving it to periods of hating it.  What's clear is Iron Man 3 is a movie that seems so eager to please.  I think they tried to do too much with it and the end result is a mixed bag.  Sometimes it's trying to be a character movie with Tony Stark suffering anxiety attacks in the wake of his harrowing experience in the Avengers movie.  Then they have some very dark scenes with the movies main villain, the Mandarin, played by a creepy and ruthless Ben Kingsley.  Then it alternates between being a buddy comedy, with Tony and Rhodes (Don Cheadle was badass!), a buddy comedy with Tony and some little kid (which was funny).  It's also a Bond movie, a slapstick comedy and of course a super hero movie.


All the little parts work really well on their own, the movie's funny, the action is great, somehow I just felt when it all came together it seemed like too much.  Robert Downey Jr. is Robert Downey Jr and therefore fun to watch.  His scenes with Don Cheadle are lots of fun but far too few.  Ben Kingsley was excellent as the Mandarin and almost all of his scenes were really strong. Guy Pearce was fairly interesting villain.   Sadly though, the weakest part of the movie for me ends up being the 'super-hero' part.  Stark spends a good part of the movie out of armour, having anxiety attacks, bickering with Gwyneth Paltrow and doing other things I could have done without.  Worse stilll, when he is in armour, you don't really care.  Probably because there is so much over the top, almost cartoonish action taking place that the movie loses a lot of tension.  And by the time the movie gets to the scene with dozens of Iron Mans flying around, the thrill of seeing Iron Man is completely gone and the grandiose super hero is somewhat diminished.

I like Iron Man.  I like bacon.  Would I eat 20 packs of bacon?  Maybe.  But this is too many Iron Mans.

The movie is really funny, but this eventually becomes a problem for me.  On the one hand they seem to want this to be a darker Iron Man. On the other hand any time things are about to get serious and you get any sense of menace, they undo it with some comedy.  Something horrible happens, then there's a cheesy one liner or comedic slapstick.  So tonally it sometimes comes off as sloppy to me. Add to that, all the characters are too quick to deliver one liners.  So not only are there dozens of Iron Man suits, there's also dozens of Robert Downeys.  Didn't bother me too much, but you notice it.

Then, there is the twist! The plot twist in Iron Man 3 has been very polarizing and I can't say too much about it without spoiling the movie.  But I will say that when I first saw it I felt let down.  No, that's not strong enough.  I was incensed!  As a comic book fan, what they did was nothing short of heresy. However, as the movie progressed I grew to appreciate it and now I even think it's pretty clever.  I guess the director was making a satirical statement about the face of terrorism by the end.  I can appreciate what the movie was trying to say, but then they play even that for laughs and we're back to status quo comedy and frenetic action.

Ben Kingsley as Osama Bin Ladden as the Mandarin.  Not the villain we deserve, but the villain we need?

Iron Man 3 is hit and miss for me.  Maybe it sounds like I didn't enjoy it, but I really did.  Good laughs, good action...  It's just that as a follow up to the Avengers it's bound to disappoint some and the geek in me really wanted more. The painful reality is that no super hero movie this year is going to be as completely satisfying as the Avengers.  I'm almost dreading Captain America, Wolverine and Thor and I fear the Marvel vehicle may run out of steam before the year is up.  The consequence of the Avengers movie is, the Marvel movies up until that point were all building up to this big amazing thing.  We were paying our dues because the promise was a big payoff!  We've seen the Avengers and it was everything fans wanted.  Now we have to go back to the milquetoast adventures of the individual characters again : Hero X has girlfriend Y and fights villain Z.

Not that the movies will necessarily be bad, I'll probably even enjoy them, but they certainly won't be amazing.  Also, Iron Man is the strongest of those characters, so as far as Marvel Movies this year, we've already peaked.  In short, the only Marvel movie I'm really anticipating at this point, is Avengers 2.  I'm hopeful that with Man of Steel on the horizon and the Dark Knight trilogy still a fan favourite, it may be DC's chance to take back its throne at the box office becoming the paragon of super hero movies once again. Here is what nerds like me are hoping for.  1) Man of Steel is amazing. 2) Chris Nolan gets involved with making a Justice League movie (or at very least a World's Finest movie) and 3) we get to see a few new DC superheroes get their own movies in the next year or so (and those movies won't suck).

Quite frankly, if Man of Steel doesn't deliver in a big way, I ... I just don't know.

3.5 exploding bad guys out of 5

Star Trek Into Darkness review and a list of my favourite Star Trek movies

I am a hardcore Trekkie.  Star Trek is a rare example of optimistic sci-fi, one that paints a future where diverse cultures get together to make the universe a better place.  Over the years that theme has taken a back seat to things with wider appeal and cheaper thrills : special effects, action, sex, youth...  Consequently, although I enjoyed the rebooted Star Trek of 2009, I wasn't thrilled by it. It was just a fun sci-fi action movie with characters I used to know and love inserted into a paper thin plot.  There was a generic villain who wanted to destroy the universe (why?) and a handful of heroes dressed up as Kirk, Spock and Uhura to take him down.  Fun movie, but was it a Star Trek movie?

I saw this movie a few hours ago and can't remember why this woman is in her underwear.

That said, the latest entry into this franchise, Star Trek Into Darkness came as a very unexpected surprise for me.  First off I would like to thank the director JJ Abrams for keeping most of the details of the movie under lock and key.  It's one of the rare movies that I went in without knowing anything about the premise, aside from a few rumours here and there.

So, I won't do you the disservice of ruining the movie for you.  I'll just say I really enjoyed the story.  I thought it brought back the 'Star Trek' element to the universe and we get to consider, briefly, the Federation's mission to be at peace with scary alien cultures all the while trying not to interfere with their evolution in the galaxy.  It was there just enough to feel like you were watching a Star Trek movie, but subtle enough that it wasn't a preachy movie about 'the Prime Directive' and peace among races.  When they did deal with the themes of the movie, there was always a powerful human motive driving the story forward. 

Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto as Kirk and Spock are phenomenal.  I must say, there were some emotional moments for me in this movie with both actors really pulling at your heartstrings at some moments. Those moments could have come off as schlocky to some, but they resonated with me for some reason.  Kirk and Spock are vulnerable heroes facing some interesting dilemmas which to me has always been the heart of Star Trek.  Benedict Cumberbatch is an intense, brooding villain stealing scenes from beginning to end.  Bruce Greenwood and Robocop (Peter Sellers) were really engaging in their supporting roles.  The movie does a masterful job of handling its different elements.  Action, sentimentality and humour come together without clashing.  I mention this because I recently saw Iron Man 3, which is a hilarious movie, but when the jokes come in Iron Man 3, they sometimes suck the life out of everything else that's going on and ultimately diffuse the tension of a scene.

There isn't much in this movie that didn't work for me.  One minor complaint : it's difficult to watch a movie where they need to give characters something to do.  Zoe Saldana is given her Uhura moments, which are fun and well done.  We get an extra helping of Simon Pegg as Scotty which fans will appreciate.  The rest of the crew is dutifully given a nod here and there.  The biggest disappointment for me was that I found Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy to be underused.  I like the actor and I like the character but in this Star Trek franchise he is not the presence that he was in earlier movies when played by the late Deforest Kelley.  Dr. McCoy, once a main character, is now there for gags.  There is also a ham-fisted cameo by a Star Trek alumni which is pointless to the plot but I thought served to add some gravitas to a scene.

Some people may find the movie too frenetic. I would go as far as to compare this to Michael Bay levels of flashy colors and explosions, all being shot by a camera man who is shooting the movie while on a truck, driving over speedbumbs while he is being electrocuted. But, there is actually a story to justify the action so the intensity and spectacle are justified and even welcome.

I love seeing new movies, and get excited after watching them if they're this good.  As such, I would need to see the movie again to really finalize the opinion I'm about to give you, but this Star Trek has at very least made it into my top 3 Star Trek movies of all time, battling it out with Star Trek 2 and 6 for top spot.  It easily out-classes any of the other movies.  I think it has wide appeal, the fan service is there and it actually has a great story IMO. 

rating : 5 dying tribbles out of 5

Oh, you're still here?  Let's rate the Trek movies in order of preference, shall we?  Which one is your favourite?

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country : Star Trek at its finest.  Kirk, Spock and Bones endeavor to make peace with their long time enemies, the Klingons.  This movie has great action, the Star Trek brand is being used to talk about real issues like racism, international conflict and we get to see our characters dealing with personal issues like friendship and old age (a common theme in a franchise starring actors that were past their prime decades before this movie was released).  It marks the return of Nicholas Meyer, the man who many believe saved Star Trek by directing the Wrath of Khan.  I love this movie. 5 eye patches bolted to your face out of 5


Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan : Speaking of Nicholas Meyer, Wrath of Khan is a a fan favourite and as I said, the movie that saved Star Trek. Kirk fights his nemesis, the super genius Khan.  A good balance of quiet character moments and tense action, Wrath of Khan is something of a space thriller with a classic, unforgettable ending.  5 brain controlling ear parasites out of 5

Star Trek 3: The Search for Spock :  I liked the science fictiony ideas they had in this Star Trek movie.  Search for Spock has the feeling of a fantasy adventure and again, the friendship between our main characters comes out a lot in this movie. 4 space coffins out of 5.

Star Trek 8: First Contact : Possibly the only good Next Generation movie.  This was pretty much a sci-fi action movie, but they shoe horn in the 'peace with other cultures' theme fairly appropriately.  Definitely a fun watch and our only opportunity to see the Next Generation crew shine in a motion picture.  It keeps a brisk pace that usually manages to outrun the many plot holes.  4 borg queens out of 5.

Star Trek (2009 with Chris Pine and Co.):  A competent reboot of the franchise, featuring a swaggering, convincing Chris Pine as Captain Kirk.  An undeniably fun action movie with the 'Star Trek' themes mostly lacking.  Like First Contact, the fun and the action allow you to overlook the elements that don't work.  4 cases of pandering to the audience out of 5.

Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home :  A Star Trek comedy?  I can never decide how much I liked this movie about time travel with a heavy handed message about the environment and biodiversity.  It's fun, and basically it's part of 1 big story (with Star Trek 2 and 3 being the first parts of that story).  It's impossible to hate, and in many ways I believe will be the only Star Trek movie of its kind.  4 aliens who befriend humpback whales out of 5.

Star Trek 5: The Final Frontier :  A lot of people hate this one, but I had fun with the somewhat underwritten adventures of Kirk, Spock and McCoy on their quest to find God at the behest of a charismatic Vulcan cult leader. 3 fake deities out of 5.

Star Trek 10: Nemesis : A disappointing swan song for the TNG cast.  A plot full of holes, desperate attempts at fan service while using the aging next generation cast to fight a villain who, of course, wants to destroy Earth.  But why?  2.5 years past its expiry date.  Umm... out of 5.

Star Trek 9: Insurrection :  A mediocre episode of the Next Generation TV show, barely dressed up for the box office.  A planet with a cure for something is attacked by guys... Then picard shoots stuff and kisses a lady.  2 purple bazookas out of 5.

Star Trek the Motion Picture (which I have yet to watch without falling asleep).  Dated, slow and boring, I can't believe that this movie was the beginning of a series of what is now 12 movies spanning over more than 3 decades.  I'm told the story is pretty good, but I wouldn't be able to say.  2 mid movie naps out of 5.

Star Trek: Generations : An incoherent mess with Next Generation crew and Original series crew thrown together using silly plot devices.  Humourless, tasteless and senseless, it fails as Star Trek, it fails as sci-fi and it fails as a movie.  Eff this Ess!!! 1 lame flying pink plot macguffin out of 5


It is very difficult to place the rebooted movies on this list as they seem to be in a class of their own.  But in terms of pure enjoyment, as I said in my review, Into Darkness is really fighting hard for top spot.

Gun control works

Kind of depressing for a blog post, but I read a story that really bothered me. Consider this tragic and infuriating story of a 2 year old who is accidentally shot and killed by her 5 year old brother.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html

Perhaps the story stuck with me a little more because I know this weekend in Houston, the NRA is having a conference, which has been described as something of a victory rally for the gun laws that they shot down recently in the US. Celebrating the very same love for guns that have killed so many children in homes and schools in the past year alone.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22390912

I can't decide what is more depressing, the actual story, or the family's reaction.  Uncle Mann says, "It's something you can't prepare for."  Except you can... By not buying guns for 5 year old children.

Grandmother Linda Riddle says of her grandaughter's death, "It was God's will. It was time to let her go."  I guess it's easier to hide behind pseudo-pious garbage like that than to take responsibility for killing a two year old with a gun.  Don't get me wrong, I can't imagine how devastating it would be if someone in my family died because of my negligence and I don't know how I would handle it.  And tragedy can happen to anyone.  My heart goes out to this family and their loss.  BUT....Can we maybe get a revelation beyond the moronic, "It was God's will"?  Is it possible that God doesn't want children to kill other children?

I guess I'm talking about two different things.  Gun control and gun safety are two different things.  But the story of this poor family seems to reflect the general attitude of a culture in love with guns.  "Children are dying, but what are you going to do?  God MUST want a society like this!"

Again, kind of depressing.  But here's John Oliver to lighten things up a bit and give us an enlightening piece about the positive effect strict gun control has had in Australia for over 2 decades. Of course gun control works, here's the proof.  It's a hilarious three parter worth watching.  It is also really inspiring to see politicians standing up for what is right, at great personal cost to their careers.  I have so much loathing for the politicians running my little province of Quebec, I was encouraged to see that it is possible for politicians to do something besides parasitize millions of people.  Politicians who care about making the world a better place more than they care about money and their careers?  Revolutionary!

My top 10 Action Cartoons from the 80's.

You know what's better than doing work?  Thinking about the awesome cartoons I used to watch in the 80s.  What made 80's cartoons so great?  Well, for starters, most of them were just extended commercials to sell toys.  Well, I guess that's not such a great thing, but many cartoons in the 80s were high-concept off the wall premises with lots of action.  Recently, Hollywood has taken to raiding my precious 80s cartoons for movie ideas and the result is often disastrous.  So, to soothe myself, I made a list of some of my favourite 80s cartoons. 

*disclaimer* This list only contains action cartoons.  Does Ducktales have action?  I guess, but I guess Ducktales will have to be addressed in another list some other day.

10)  He-man and the Masters of the Universe 
A sci-fi/fantasy cartoon that is ahead of its time for featuring the first openly gay main character in an action cartoon series. Alternating between a flashy pink blazer and a baffling S&M battle outfit, it donned on me when I was a little older that Adam may have preferred the company of Man at Arms to that of... whatever that girl's name was in the show.  The director of the last GI Joe movie, Kenny Chu, is rumored to be involved in making a new He-man movie (the first one being the 80s movie starring Dolph Lundgren).  Anyone else think that Shee-ra, the cartoon about He-man's sister, was the better cartoon?



9) Dinoriders
Dinosaurs were all the rage in the 80s.  And so was violence.  Putting lasers and rocket launchers on Dinosaurs seems like such an obviously good idea to me I am surprised that there aren't a team of scientists working on making such an army a reality right now.  The main character's name is Questar and the main villains name is Cruelos leader of the Rulons.  Now that's just lazy writing.  But who cares I guess?  As long as it has frickin' dinosaurs with frickin' lasers attached to their head!  Never had any Dinorider toys, but they look pretty sweet.



8) Robocop
Robocop was so freaking cool.  To this day the first Robocop movie remains the most terrifying thing I have ever seen.  It still makes me tense to remember the over the top gore, cruelty and violence that children nowadays cannot even fathom.  Surprisingly, back in the 80s they made a cartoon based on the horrific movie and that cartoon was pretty dark and violent itself, at least by cartoon standards.  They're remaking Robocop and I can guarantee that this new movie will be one of the biggest disappointments of my life.  Paul Veerhoven is already rolling around in his grave. And the movie isn't even out yet!  And Paul Veerhoven isn't dead!  The movie will be so bad, Paul Veerhoven preemptively bought himself a burial plot so he can roll around in it, moaning in despair over what's been done to our beloved Robocop.

Check out the opening scene to this children show which shows the main character getting gundowned by a cartoon of Eric Foreman's dad.



7) Thundercats
I never had any thundercats toys.  I think it was one of those shows I usually missed on Sunday mornings because of church.  You may ask yourself, what kind of God would allow me to miss a mediocre cartoon to worship him every week?  I asked myself the same question on Sunday mornings.  But what I do remember about the cartoon was pretty cool.  The guy's were cats with swords.  And they fought a mummy for some reason.  Mummies and cats have been mortal enemies since the days of ancient Egypt.  They remade that cartoon recently and it was pretty good.



6) Mask
Cool toys about some guys who fight other guys.  The hook?  Their cars and airplanes transform into cars and airplanes with guns.  And for some reason the guys in the cars wear masks.  I remember loving this cartoon and having a few of the toys.  That being said, I don't remember too much about the actual plot of the show.



5) Silverhawks
Best. Toys. Ever.  Just incredible.  These guys were some kind of space... guys.  They were fired out of this amazing spaceship (for which I had the toy) and then their silvery armour deployed wings so they could fly around in space and fight a red guy who flew around on a giant squid.



4) C.O.P.S.  
Best. Toys. Ever.  I know I said it about Silverhawks but these are the REAL best toys ever.  COPS was this odd, cyberpunkish cartoon about police officers fighting a mob lead by the Big Boss.  The characters were memorable, the action was intense.  I may have been only 8 years old at the time, but is it possible that the characters in this show were written a little better than in other cartoons?  Maybe it's just my imagination.  The action figures for these toys were pretty big had more points of articulation than any toy I can remember and each one came with a cap gun.  There were also tons of vehicles to go with these toys.  Too bad the show didn't run longer than it did.  Bulletproof FTW!



3) Transformers
Obviously this one was going to be near the top, though the show didn't age well.  Add to that the fact that the franchise has been forever defiled by the unscrupulous and evil, Michael Bay.  Aside from the completely incoherent plot of the movies especially the second and third one, they have ruined a childhood icon, Optimus Prime.  Optimus Prime, voiced by Peter Cullen since 1984, was a character who was honorable and merciful almost to a fault.  Anyone my age will remember the day that Optimus Prime died.  Why?  Because he hesitated to blow Megatron's head off.  In the new live action movies, Optimus Prime blasts Leonard Nimoy's face off, then rips Megatron's head off with an axe AFTER Megatron just saved his life.  We won't even get into how every single Transformer character was ruined in these movies.  Transformers will forever be the best example of Hollywood ruining my childhood.



2) GI Joe 
My mom wouldn't let me own GI Joe's because she thought it promoted war and violence and she was totally right.  And it seems that GI Joe used to run at the same time as Jem, about a rockstar/superhero, so my sister and I would have to compete for TV time to watch our favourite cartoons.  But the apocryphal story of why I went into the field of Biology is that when I was young I saw the episode of GI Joe where Dr. Mindbender genetically engineered an evil dictator named Serpentor by splicing together the DNA of Ghengis Khan, Dracula, Sergeant Slaughter, Julius Ceasar, Sun Tsu... and more!!!  What a cool idea.  When I learned this DNA stuff was real, well, I was hooked on science.  Thanks GI Joe.  Thanks to you I spent way more time in University than any sane person should.  I hated the first GI Joe live action movie, but the second one was tons of fun.  Of course, the REAL GI Joe movie will always be this...



1)  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles  
I don't' know if Ninja Turtles belongs at the top of the list. But I find this show had it all.  It was funny, great action, great characters, amazing toys.  (I had tons of these and the awesome party wagon).  What sense of humour I have, I owe in large part to the hilarious Ninja Turtles cartoon.  Ninja Turtles started a trend of cartoon animals fighting bad guys. I haven't seen any of the recent remakes of the cartoon but I doubt they captured the often corny humour of the original cartoon. What was so funny about Ninja Turtles?  The main villains, Shredder and Krang, a ninja and a talking brain, who basically acted like an old married couple.  Who came up with that?



Looking back on my list I've forgotten 2 very important and possibly lesser known cartoons.  Visionaries, which was one of the best things ever, featuring toys with holograms on their chest.  It was kind of a medieval fantasy with knights and wizards.  Inhumanoids was a pretty scary cartoon where the main characters turned into monsters. Okay, okay, I'm done.  Next week, 90s cartoons?

Django: Unchained

Pure Badass

Django: Unchained is easily one of my favourite movies of the year.  Anyone who has been following the buzz surrounding this movie is well aware of how amazing Leonardo DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz are in this movie.  Quentin Tarantino’s trademark meticulous dialogue has already gotten a Golden Globe for the movie.  Jamie Foxx, who plays the main character of Django, has not gotten as much attention for his performance, but I enjoyed it a lot.  His performance bubbles beneath an intensely silent exterior.  He starts off broken and hopeless but grows into an action hero/super hero/Blaxploitation anti-hero, wearing each of those hats convincingly throughout the film. It’s exactly what he needed to be for this movie and I thought he did it perfectly. Samuel L. Jackson is always awesome, but maybe just a little bit more awesome than usual in this.

The movie opens when Dr. Shultz, played by Christoph Waltz, frees Django so that he can help him find 3 criminals and collect the bounty on them.  In return, Dr. Shultz will help Django find his wife, Broomhilda Von Shaft, played by Kerry Washington (an obvious nod to Blaxploitation films).  Funny, well-written and action packed, the movie is as enjoyable in its cathartic violent moments as it is heart-wrenching in some of its more depressing scenes.  It goes from being a fun action/adventure to a period piece about slavery to a fairy tale and like it's main character plays its many roles convincingly.  

Django is on its way to becoming Tarantino’s highest grossing movie in no small part because of the controversy surrounding it.  People were afraid that it might take the horrors of slavery too lightly.  Other people were uncomfortable with the frequent use of the word ‘nigger’.  I don’t know how that is possible.  Does anyone listen to rap music?  Have these people ever read Huckleberry Finn?  Well, then you certainly shouldn’t be bothered with this movie that uses the word in its historical context, generally to characterize the villains in the movie.

Have you ever seen my movies?  Frozone is the only character I have played who doesn't say the 'n-word'.

Why you no like it when I wear a dress, Spike?

And when will people like Spike Lee learn that there is no such thing as bad publicity?  Before the movie’s release, Spike Lee announced that he would not go to see the movie because, “Slavery was not a spaghetti western.  It was a holocaust.” Very true, but I’m always amazed by Spike Lee, a vocal critic of not only Tarantino but even Tyler Perry.  I’m tired of having Spike Lee’s recipe for Black empowerment shoved down my throat anytime anyone deals with issues of race. Don’t get me wrong, I love Spike Lee’s movies, and I think he has done a lot for the movie industry, but I could do without Spike Lee rants.  Especially since his cantankerous sounding off probably has exactly the opposite effect that he would like it to have.  Not all movies need to be, or can be ‘Malcolm X’. Some movies are ‘Madea’s Big Top Adventure’ or 'Madea Saves Christmas' or 'Madea goes to..." whatever, you get the point.  If Black people survived slavery they’ll survive Madea, it’s okay, Spike.

Still, I was certainly worried that with Django, I would be seeing a movie that dealt with slavery in a flippant manner.  The only thing I would have hated more is the feeling of watching a movie where the main white character suddenly realizes, “Well, Golly!  Black people are very much like human beings! Let’s free all the slaves!” In this movie the main white hero, Dr. Shultz, starts at the same point as the audience (most of us):  that slavery was a barbaric and cruel affliction on human beings with black skin.  It avoids the condescending preachiness of some movies that endeavor to tackle a big issue.

Where the movie really turns into something unique is when we see the role reversal that takes place between Django and Dr. Shultz.  Django starts off as an uneducated man, broken by the cruelty he has endured throughout his life and the loss of his wife. Dr. Shultz trains him to be a bounty hunter, teaching him how to read, negotiate and generally how to be an awesome badass.  It’s a super hero origin story with an almost wizard like mentor, teaching the main character how to become a hero.  But once the two characters are immersed into the ugly, cruel world of slavery in Mississippi, it is Dr. Shultz who becomes the neophyte, completely baffled by the horrors around him. We then see Django growing into his role as a hero, ‘getting dirty’, in ways that make even Dr. Shultz, an otherwise remorseless killer, shudder.  I thought the actors did a great job of bringing out the subtleties in their characters and showing their growth and change throughout the movie.

"Feel the Force, Django."

With all that being said, ultimately, the movie is a simple revenge flic, Tarantino’s speciality.  Does it need to be anything more than that?  Do we really want to charge Hollywood with the task of teaching us history or morality?  I don’t think anyone is rushing to give Tarantino a Nobel Peace Prize for this action movie but as a movie that seeks to be escapist entertainment I think it succeeds.  Anything else it might do with regards to ‘opening a dialogue about slavery’ is debatable but it certainly doesn’t hurt. 

Tarantino walks a fine line in making an entertaining movie without making a farce of slavery itself.  Of course it goes without saying that Django: Unchained is not a history lesson, with many fantasies invented or borrowed for the narrative of the film.  Most upsetting is the idea of slaves fighting to the death for the amusement of their capricious masters.  Here’s an article that discusses some of the more contentious claims being made in the movie.

http://www.theroot.com/views/did-dogs-really-eat-slaves-django?page=0,0

I myself am not what you would call a fanboy of Quentin Tarantino, though I do enjoy some of his movies.  I would highly recommend this particular movie, unless of course you are not in the mood for over the top violence and some truly upsetting scenes of cruelty and brutality. 

5 bullets to the junk out of 5.

The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit is basically mandatory viewing for any fans of Lord of the Rings and probably any fan of fantasy.  So far, the reviews for the Hobbit are not the overwhelmingly positive reviews that the Lord of the Rings trilogy enjoyed, with some people criticizing its pacing and the strange effect that is created by filming the movie in 48 frames per second. I suspect that this movie suffers most from not being Lord of the Rings and if it had come out before the Lord of the Rings movies it would have been better received.  As it stands, the Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey,as good as it may be, will be perceived by most as just an inferior sequel.

 I’ll start off by saying, I was probably seeing the entire thing through rose coloured lenses.  I'm too much of a geek to not be in love with this movie. And I can't really see this movie as 'inferior', but rather just different.  It's not trying to be a dark, intense apocalyptic tale.  It's just a fun adventure.  That being said, I think I understand the criticisms about the length and pacing of the movie.  Think about it, this was supposed to be one movie originally.  No one complained.  Except studio executives I guess, who saw dollar signs and decided to turn the Hobbit, based on one book, into two movies. Alright, alright, it’s a business they want to double dip.  Can’t fault them for that.  Then a month later they decided to go for broke and turn the Hobbit, one children’s book, into an astounding 3 movies which will probably be about 3 hours each.

"I have to be in how many of these movies?  The first one is almost 3 hours long!?"

That my friends is gratuitous.  The episodic nature of the books translates to a movie where you almost feel like, they could have ended it anywhere after the two-hour mark and had the same effect as it did after 3.  After our heroes leave the Shire they go on one adventure after another until the movie seems to arbitrarily stop with them looking at their ultimate destination, the Lonely Mountain.  I also got the feeling that the movie had a lot of trouble getting off the ground.  It starts off way slow with old Bilbo, played by Ian Holm narrating his life story.  As if that's not enough,Elijah Wood as Frodo shows up to add some more padding to the movie.  Knowing that you have almost 3 hours ahead of you you find yourself asking, "Why?  Why Elijah Wood?  Why a flashback scene?  Can we just get to the point?  Or do we need to make sure there is enough material for 3 movies?"

 The slow narration brings us to Martin Freeman, a younger Bilbo Baggins, languidly smoking a pipe when Ian McKellen shows up as Gandalf. What follows is a long but rather long but enjoyable introduction of the 13 dwarves, who recruit Bilbo on their quest to recover their gold from the dragon Smaug. Now here is where I prefer the Hobbit over the Lord of the Rings.  Despite having so many characters introduced all at once in one scene, I find most of them to be far more interesting than the characters in Lord of the Rings.  Most of the characters in Lord of the Rings are these weird, other-worldy, sometimes alienating archetypes.  The dwarves who are central to this story have had their home taken from them by the evil dragon Smaug.  To fit into the world we’re told they have been forced to take jobs as craftsmen and merchants.  Something about their lost home really resonated with me.  Still, despite their tragic history, they can still turn around and party, without seeming impish and bizarre like the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings.  In short, I love the dwarves.

 I find Martin Freeman's Bilbo to be a more compelling protagonist than Frodo.  He just seems like he's a more decisive character, making choices based on compassion and a desire for adventure.  Frodo seemed to have been forced on his journey and is constantly overwhelmed, tormented and broken.  That's no fun.  I loved the grim and almost bitter character of Thorin Oakenshield played by Richard Armitage.  And even though the dwarves are mostly site gags, the scene where they intrude on Bilbo's home manages to hit a wide range of emotions from the dwarves.  For those who know the story of the Hobbit, it starts off when a company of dwarves crash Bilbo’s house and start partying, tracking mud all over his house and eating all of his food.  They’re singing and partying but when their leader Thorin finally shows up, the scene immediately becomes heavy and reverent. I was enthralled by the dwarves singing Over the Misty Mountains Cold, a lament over their lost home.  It was kind of touching.

 After that you feel like there are a few slow unnecessary scenes.  Where the Hobbit novel is a brisk tale about Bilbo Baggins, the Hobbit movie is a meandering epic about the Hobbit, a bunch of dwarves, surprise cameos from the other movies and some pot smoking, hippy wizard named Radagast who rides a sleigh pulled by rabbits (the rabbits must be jacked up on steroids or something). It's not as focused and I think the movie would have had more of a punch if it was centered on Bilbo rather than 3-4 characters at once.  Of course, if you know who Radagast is (and have his Middle Earth customizable card game card…which I do), then you may not mind the added detail.

Look!  It's everyone's favourite character, Radagast!  I have his trading card!  Seriously!

The story does finally take off and when it does, it's a lot of fun.  I wondered if the over the top cartoonish action scenes would be off-putting to some.  I liked them.  To compare this to Lord of the Rings, I would say that although the Hobbit can hit a few dark notes from time to time, overall it’s a funner, lighter adventure than the often morose Lord of the Rings.  I can’t write this review without mentioning the fantastic job they did with the Riddles in the Dark chapter from the book which is of course where Bilbo meets Gollum.  Again, Andy Serkis is just brilliant as Gollum in a scene that’s funny, scary and sometimes sad.  That scene had everything I love most about this movie, namely its ability to hit all those emotional notes without betraying the tone of the story which never strays too far from being a light-hearted adventure.

 Concerning the 48 fps.  Well, have you ever been watching a blu ray, or a movie in the theater and thought to yourself, “Man, I wish the frame rate was faster!”  Of course not, but clearly the same people who would try and make 3 movies out of 1 book, would also be very interested in introducing a new gimmick to sell their movies.  This is that gimmick that no one asked for, 48fps!  I found the faster frame rate little strange.  It makes the movie look like it’s being sped up. You would have to see it to get the full impression, but it is noticeable.  Allegedly, this faster frame rate is supposed to make the 3D effects easier to swallow. Now I am a person who likes 3D movies when done properly.  This year I saw Men in Black 3 and Prometheus in 3D and thought those movies looked amazing.  The main reason is, 3D glasses normally make a movie look dark, so the movie itself has to be projected brighter than a normal movie would.  For the movies I just mentioned everything seemed bright enough that you can enjoy the 3D effects without losing the colour and detail of the picture.  I also saw the Amazing Spiderman in 3D and didn’t think it looked so good at all.  Everything was too dark and the movie ended up looking like crap.



This looked awesome in 3D.

Now, we all know that Peter Jackson is in love with New Zealand and though some people might find the grandiose shots of the mountains in Middle Earth to be unnecessary and self-indulgent, I was totally into it.  I think the 3D effects added to the feeling of being on a cliff or looking out over a vast landscape, or falling into the cavernous pits of the Goblin layer. I would go as far as saying this is among the best uses of 3D in a movie I have seen yet.  If you like 3D movies, I would say you're in for a treat.  I don't understand people who say that 3D movies give them a headache, or say that it's distracting or insist that it is a trend that won't last.  But if you're one of those people, you know what to do!  I’m still undecided on whether or not the increased frame rate is necessary, but it didn’t bother me too much at all. 

Whatever the format, if you’re a fan of fantasy, you’re going to see this movie at some point.  You might need a little bit of caffeine to carry you through the somewhat bloated 3 hours, but it seems you’ve already read this  review so you are already an expert on ‘bloated’.  As a fan of fantasy, seeing orcs battle dwarves, seeing wizards throw fire balls at wolf monsters, seeing a dragon sleeping under a mountain of gold made my inner kid go crazy. The Hobbit is a welcome addition to the world of Middle Earth. It is different enough in tone and atmosphere to not feel like a tedious repeat of what we've already seen and fun enough that I will definitely be seeing it again, while I eagerly await sequels.

 4.5 steroid enhanced rabbits out of 5.