X-Men: First Class (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Every sinking franchise must have a reboot in order to keep the fans alive and well. It worked with the Batman franchise, the James Bond franchise, the Star Trek franchise, and now, it works with the X-Men franchise. The first two movies were done really well with Bryan Singer behind the camera. He now returns in the producer role in this new prequel, or what I would argue as a reboot. The all too familiar "Usual Suspects" lineup and the titles, "Bad Hat Harry Productions" gave me a nostalgic trip back to the first two movies before they were soured up.

            The movie focuses on Charles Xavier, and Erik Lensherr as they were young during the backdrop of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Charles' goal in life is to find, and study mutants, welcoming them in open arms. Erik's goal was to kill Sebastian Shaw, who murdered his mother in the concentration camp. Meanwhile, Sebastian seeks in creating a nuclear war, in order to secure the mutant race, by staging the Cuban Missile Crisis.

            The first part that works really well is the reintroducing of the characters. Mystique is my favorite character in this movie because before, we would see her as a loyal henchman who doesn't have a word in anything. In this movie, we know how she feels, we know her inner conflict, and the chemistry formed between certain characters. The other thing I like about this movie is how we identify Professor X as Charles, and Magneto as Erik. They are more than just action figures. They are mutants with relatable human qualities. We understand Erik's pain in the concentration camps and his path to find catharsis through killing Sebastian Shaw. On the other hand, Charles serves as the shoulder angel and tries to talk Erik out of his destructive path. We see Charles more in this movie instead of him as the wise old sage. We see him with conflicting scenarios and we see him suffer.

            This works so much for an X-Men movie. For one, Charles sets up a school for mutants. However, in this movie, Charles actually trains the new recruits. We see a bright and wonderful montage of each mutant progressing during their training. I also like the civil rights inserts in the movie. The X-Men franchise is to reflect on the Civil Rights movements and the right for equality. In this movie, there are some homosexual inserts that are a little fun to spot out, such as, don't ask, don't tell, and being proud. For once, this movie deals greatly about accepting one's identity. We see Raven with her hideous blue form and not accepting it, and in the end, she becomes proud of herself as a mutant. I respect that and I think that's what defines an X-Men movie.

            The movie is visually told really well. Although the fight scenes are spectacularly done, it does not get so much in the way of the story and is used only when needed. Apart from the split-screen editing used in the training montage, there are some impressive visuals, such as the missiles flying back and forth, and the fight scenes. Being that it's a prequel. The prototype look served really well. The X-Jet is a modified version of the Blackbird. The original X-suits were blue and yellow. The basement was not high tech at all but more of a bomb shelter.

            The movie does a fine job of reinventing the franchise through drastic changes. Now there is a difference between the inconsistencies with movies like "Armageddon," as opposed to this movie. In Armageddon, the story was boring and clichéd ridden. It got to the point where the story doesn't really mattered and the movie experience is taken away. All that's left is pointing out the numerous flaws in the scientific accuracy of the movie. In this movie, I was captivated in the story so much, that the inconsistencies and the plot holes didn't really mattered. It was the same with J.J. Abram's "Star Trek," where we get so into the story, we learn to accept Kirk as a fast paced rebel, instead of noting his major differences in the old movies.

            It's an X-Men movie that we've long been waiting for. It's a great X-Men movie, but above all, it's a great movie in general. Despite being a reboot, or having many continuity errors, the movie ties everything up so neatly, leading up to the all time rivalry of Magneto and Professor X. For every rivalry to form, there has to be a good solid reason. This movie answers the "why."

Cars (2 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Handling Pixar's first rotten tomato is like finding your first acne. After finding that small glitch, you start hoping that it doesn't continue and pray to god that it's just a mistake. As human nature, we make mistakes and are trained to fix it. Hopefully I'm right about this because I'm in the denial process right now and I don't want it to transition into aggression.

            The fact of the matter is, Cars 2 is the worst Pixar movie to date, and that's pretty harsh considering that Pixar was consecutively the one film company that was consistent with raking in money while at the same time, making wonderful movies. That's why, when rating any Pixar movie, I judge it with high expectations. If Pixar releases a movie that's average looking, then I would become disappointed in it. Cars 2, on the other hand was slightly below average to me, and because of that, I hope that it stays as the worst Pixar movie of all time.

            I did like the fact that this movie was faster than its previous movie. In this movie, there is a James bond like plot that involves a mastermind scheme that'll eventually resolve itself at the end of the movie. I will say though that the scheme with the Alinoll bio fuel, the Lemon cars, and Professor Z trying to get rid of the World Grand Prix racecars was indeed smart. For an action movie, it was pretty smart and became a good guessing game for a while until it got too predictable. They practically gave away the ending at one point in the film. Is this what Pixar has come to? Has Pixar stopped taking risks and decided to stick with conventions like the cliché Bond type film?

            Because of being faster instead of living the slow life, we sacrifice the fundamental attribute of relating a character. The whole premise felt like a joke to me and it pains me to see that thousands of heads collaborated on this. The movie shifts its focus on Mater, the tow truck, more than Lightning McQueen. This was my first problem because Mater is a comic relief, and if one makes a comic relief the main character, and then the movie will not be taken seriously. Pixar has come up with a huge array of protagonists that stays ingrained in our memories. I never had a problem with switching the main characters, being that they did the same thing in Toy Story 2, but if the main character is nothing but a buffoon for a bulk of the movie, then there will be problems.

               Lightning and Mater's friendship doesn't fit well in with me. Why should Lightning be friends with Mater again after what he did? Was it because of a gut feeling? Also, we see that Mater's fundamental flaw is that he can't be normal; however, at the end of the movie, we never really resolved this problem. Should he learn to a better car, or be the same idiot as he is? Or should he learn in being different in a different scenario when possible? Can we change human nature or can't we? The morality is blurred in this movie, whereas the first Cars was very fine and clear.

            My problem with the first movie stems with how there are so much characters that it seemed impossible to relate to all of them. In conclusion, they were there to sell some toys. I guess that they are doing the same approach in this movie where the more characters on the screen will pay off on the toy shelves, especially now that there are ships and planes in this movie as well.

            Most of the Pixar endings have a great way of tying up every story, plot, and character conflicts into a neat bow. Sometimes, these endings can be really brief and some don't even need words to explain the ending to us. In this movie, there is a lag ending, never knowing when the movie is going to end.

            Lastly, the reason why it's the worst Pixar movie was because of the audience's reaction in the theater. There are some that makes us laugh, and some that makes us cry. Even though these movies are from Disney, they show some of the darkest things in animation history, making us dread at tension filled moments. In Cars 2, there was nothing. The entire audience was silent, except during the Pixar short that shown in the beginning. There were some comedic touches at times, but in general, my biggest criticism towards this movie is about how I felt nothing, as if I lost my soul and found no way of enjoying the pleasures of life. 

Scream 4 (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Many people had doubts about this movie because it's the fourth movie in a trilogy that had a conclusion. Sad to say, I liked this movie, as a guilty pleasure. I also liked it as a bad movie, because it is still a parody, regardless of it being a horror movie. The movie is good, not because it had some frights, but because it was hilarious.

            At the start of the bat, the new improvement was the script and the new parodying interests it preys on. It starts off with a very interesting introduction that pokes fun at horror movie sequels, the "Scream" franchise itself, and how parodies might go too far. The introduction is as good as the first movies introduction, but instead of being scary, it chose a different route by being funny. In this movie, Sidney decides to return to her hometown to promote her new book. However, the all too familiar ghost face returns and is off killing again. This time, the killer is patterning the kills off of the first movie and is attempting to do a remake by making them gorier, a play on torture porn, as well as recording them, a play on found footage horror movies.

            The thing that made the third movie bad was that it became the very thing it sought to make fun of, and that was making a bad horror movie. It wasn't making fun of horror movie clichés as much as the first two. In this movie, there are references upon references on sequels, remakes, the actual franchises, and horror movies in general. The movie makes a good point about generations and how they play a key role in horror movies. It's hard to scare these kids nowadays because they've seen just about everything. Because of this, movies are now turning up the volume on violence and sex while keeping the old conventions that we have fun pointing out. Instead of finding a new ingenious idea for a scary movie, people are turning to horror movie remakes.

            People can say that it was a good or bad film. However, I thought it was a really fun movie to watch. When my friends and I were in the theater, we constantly spotted the clichés and the horror movie references. When we hear the all too familiar Ghostface voice, we are filled with nostalgia instead of tensed fear. We even applauded at certain lines and laughed at certain parts when everyone else were confused. It's been a very long time since I've had so much fun watching a movie.

            There are people who'll say that this movie had bad moments in it. However, to my judgment, those bad moments were intentional. It was to show how crappy a remake can become by screwing up the original. It was to show how it screws up a horror series and turns it into a comedy. If there is a successful horror movie franchise, the one thing you want to do is to keep making sequels. This method does not work because we know who the killer is. We know his every move and if you know what he will do next, then the unpredictability is lost. When unpredictability is lost, then remakes are formed as a sad excuse to reinvent the killer and his methods. Although there are a small handful of good remakes, remakes and sequels is a horrible system in general. Not to mention, as we evolve as a culture, our conventions have to change. "The unexpected is the new cliché."At first, it was suspenseful when there was no caller ID. Now, they have to make apps, viral videos, Facebook, and Twitter references. My friend and I have this pet peeve where someone would introduce us to a horror movie and we've already know the movie and that it's a remake of an original masterpiece. This led me into ranting about horror movie remakes and this is what probably led the creative team into doing this project.

            If you like horror movies, then watch this movie. If you like original horror movies, then watch this. If you liked the first "Scream," then watch this movie. If you like movies in general, then watch this movie. This movie worked and I want to thank Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson for doing justice to a stupid movie generation where all we see are stupid horror movie sequels and remakes. 

Super 8 (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Super 8 is more than a summer blockbuster monster movie. This movie brings forth the child within us, like it did in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, it has the same mystery as it did in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and it's a proper mainstream movie. J.J. Abrams pulls off the ideal Spielberg movie that we all loved as a little kid. The movie hits me at a personal level because it brings me the nostalgia of being a kid, as well as watching the old Spielberg movies.

            The movie starts with a death in the family. Joe's mother died in a steel industry accident and four months later, Joe still has her plagued in his mind. meanwhile, Joe's friends wants to finish Charles' zombie movie and they got, Alice, a girl on the team. They shoot at a train stop where an intentional train derailment occurs and a thing escaped from the train. After this, there has been some weird occurrences, such as dogs running away, electronic equipment being stolen, electricity being tampered with, and even people disappearing. Joe and the boys, along with Alice, try to uncover the mystery of these occurrences, whilst also trying to finish their movie.

            The movie was really fast paced, because of J.J. Abram's style of choosing chaos over order. This was why Star Trek was good, because instead of sitting down and planning an attack, they're running around all over the place. In Mission Impossible III, Ethan is chaotic because he has to diffuse something. In this movie, there are kids running over the place, there are scenes where there are three different conversations going on, and there are scenes that have frantic, yet unique camera moves.

            Like the trailer, the movie never shows the thing in the train for a very long time. Most of the time, it's hidden, like the shark from Jaws. This adds to two great effect. One, it boosts the suspense by ten folds, and two, it doesn't detract from the story, because the movie is really more about Joe's life after his mother's death and his way of coping life and not the monster itself. The little moments, especially the scenes involving the locket, are essentially the best parts of the movie.

            I loved the story of Joe and what it was like as a kid in that movie. This movie worked, like E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, and, The Goonies. What made it great was that most of the movie was told in their point-of-view. Joe and Alice are wonderful characters with a real sense of chemistry to each other that slowly works up to the ending. It's realistic and there is even a zombie scene in the movie that's actually really touching. Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney both do a wonderful job as the two main characters. I like Joe's connection with his mother and how he kept the locket of his mother all this time for safe keeping. As the movie progresses, the safe keeping becomes obsessively protected, thus providing an inner conflict for Joe. There are those child like moments that reminded me of how great it was to be a kid. Their primary mode of transportation was the bike, they used walkie-talkies, and they made movies using a home camera and cheesy film equipment. Again, most of these objects are the symbols of what kids have, and that is the freedom and happiness of being a kid. They are also the ones who really seem to have a sense of compassion and gratitude towards life while the adults have a destructive side. The adults seem to enforce and enact rules in order to silence them, but the kids seem to go against it.

            The movie is an innocent sci-fi that's funny, witty, scary, action packed, adventurous, and mysterious. It has everything that a good Spielberg movie has and it still has some of J.J Abram's remnants left behind. This was a nostalgic trip to the past and it will entertain the old folks, as well as the young folks. It has a wonderful emotional story that kept me guessing until the end. The kids and their stories worked really well as they make their bad zombie movie. I love and appreciate kids who try to make their own backyard movies. I even did a short film once by taping a microphone to a stick once.

            Even though it's technically a monster movie, the movie has great characters and conflicts that all tie up together. The movie is about child innocence and how a child character matures as the main character with a character arc would typically do. This a great movie because it reminds me of how great it was to be a kid, oblivious of the mundane adult world. Steven Spielberg made it famous with an in your face movie, Jaws, and later matured for E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. Because of this, he's gained fame as a great director. Now it's J.J. Abram's turn for his shot at fame. He's made an in your face movie, Star Trek, and now he's matured and made this movie. Although the boy's zombie wasn't exactly mint, I would say that Super 8 was mint.

Captain America: The First Avenger (3 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Captain America was done exceptionally well for a superhero movie that mainly talks about a hero. To me, this was done with a quality that only shows up in traditional superheroes. To clarify, many superhero movies, nowadays, questions their positions as a superhero; such as Spider-Man, from Spider-Man 2, Batman, from The Dark Knight, and the Watchmen from Watchmen. In this movie, they've decided to go with the old roots of what made superheroes truly remarkable. Kids need role models because they need, not a superhero, but a real hero.

            The most important factor that went into play was Steve Rogers and his role as Captain America. We are given a scrawny looking Steve Rogers, who's surprisingly played by Chris Evans, who gets bullied and picked on for his physical limitations. He wants to enlist into the army, only to get rejected. What really defines Steve Rogers is his bravery amongst anything. When the colonel (played by Tommy Lee Jones) throws a fake grenade at the troops, Steve goes at it and sacrifices his life for his troops.

            When we see the new and enhanced Steve Rogers, his personality and bravery is still retained. The only difference is his only physical body. When he saves the day for the first time, people start using him to sell war bonds. Although he's technically helping a cause, in a cheery and delightful patriotic montage of a campy Captain America, Steve wants to do more than just that. He becomes a celebrity, however, he wants to leave that behind in order to be a hero. Like any Greek myth hero, the hero must go into hell and back, facing death face to face. In this movie, Captain America decides to infiltrate behind enemy lines in order to rescue hundreds of POW. Again, a running theme of the movie is Captain America's self-sacrificing bravery in the face of death. In the end of the movie, there is a kid with a garbage pail painted as Captain America's shield. to me, these are the true reasons on why we look up o certain heroes like Captain America.

            A hero, however, is nothing without his supporting characters. Despite Tommy Lee Jones' role as Colonel Philips, he's actually quite witty and funny at times. Peggy Carter, the love interest, was done exceptionally well as she partly serves as Captain America's motivation. I didn't like Stanley Tucci's role as the scientist, Dr. Erskine, who concocted the serum. He felt overacted and his accent sticks out like a sore thumb. I also didn't like the fact that we aren't given much information about the squad members who helps Captain America. However, the star supporting actor would have to be Johann Schmidt, AKA, Red Skull, played by Hugo Weaving. He is a Nazi officer who went rogue and formed his own legion called HYDRA. His menacing red face is shown in shadows at first, and later shown to Captain America. He affectively plays as a great villain, being that most superhero movies are defined by their villains.

            The only real problem I had with the movie, ironically, were the visual aspects. The set design in this Neo World War II universe was done really well, and yet, it still retained some of that feeling of being in the 40's. The look of the film looked really nice, despite having some obvious green screen moments and jarring 3D scenes that are not meant for 2D screens. There were certain shots that felt too visually dark and unrealistic, and it took away the superhero feel when we are shown green screen shots.

            When I went in the theater, I came in with a pessimistic feel, due to Captain America's ideology. One, he takes a serum that looked like an enhanced version of Steroids. When I saw the movie, I thought that really deserved that power, because he was a great human being in every way, except for his physical body. I didn't like the fact that he used a gun in the trailer. Again, we never see him with a gun that often and instead uses his shield, showing that he plays defensively instead of shooting people in cold blood. The gritty looking army uniform he wore wasn't all that appealing in the trailer; however, he does wear his spandex and chainmail uniform in the movie, and it does look stupid. After a while, I started to really like the gritty looking uniform. It felt needed for telling the origins of Captain America by making him look like the prototype of superheroes.

            The reason why I didn't like Thor so much, was because of the over extensive use of SHIELD. The movie robs Thor and becomes a movie that leads to The Avengers. In Captain America, we never see much of SHIELD, except in the beginning, and in the end. They felt like a cliffhanger, giving a better anticipated feel for The Avengers.

We've gone so far into a new vision of superheroes that we've totally forgotten about their roots. This movie reminded us of the good old days when superheroes were simply the all around hero. It's a great traditional superhero movie. I just wished that it was shot in a traditional way.

Thor (2 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            There were some good moments and there were some bad moments. However, the most perplexing thing about this movie was that they didn't answer "why." Why should I watch this movie? There is usually a reason why we watch superhero movies. We want to be in their shoes and have mystical powers, or fancy gadgets. So what does Thor offer, other than the hammer?

            The movie starts out with a narrative about Odin fighting against the Frost Giants of Jotunheim, setting up the story. We then see that Thor is going to ascend the throne, but before he does, he goes to Jotunheim, the realm of the Frost Giants, and rage war against them with his buddies. This leads him to being banished and having his brother, Loki, take the throne momentarily. This is also where we meet the Earth characters. We first have Jane Foster, her annoying friend, Darcy, and Erik. Together, they help nurse Thor back to life and although there are some comedic value between these characters, the idea of this was flat out uninspiring. Not only that, it plays as a clueless sitcom of Thor walking around and making a fool out of himself. This is a superhero movie, not a sitcom.

            The thing I liked about this movie was the personality behind the characters, despite having them saying godlike boring dialogue. Thor was impulsive, Loki wanted power, and Jane was helpful and kind. Loki's performance had me at best because in the end, we start caring for him, despite being the bad guy. Thor does get too arrogant in the beginning and it gets ridiculous for some time. The Earth characters do not interest me so much because the movie is not really about them. The relationship with Jane and Thor, though awkward at first, sort of worked out in the end. I also felt a changed in character when Thor fights the Automaton. There was some tension in that moment, but the real important part of that was not the fighting, but the character and his realization of his flaw. I thought that worked pretty well.

            To some degree, the special effects were not jarring and it worked pretty well. There were some slanted angle shots that felt unnecessary, but the 3D was not in your face 3D. The scenery in Asgard were done pretty well, even though it was full on CGI. I even liked the rainbow bridge and the gate. The beginning battle scene, although pointless, was done pretty well and I'll give them credit for that.

            The reason why I do not like this movie is because of the marketing scam behind it. It's all a set up for "The Avengers." for the same reason why they killed "Iron-Man 2," the SHIELD people will not leave the superheroes alone. The whole confrontation scene where Thor tries to pull Mjolnir out from the ground was pointless. The whole reason why that scene was there was for him to realize he was not worthy when he couldn't pull the hammer out. We didn't have to go through a pointless fight scene and a pointless introduction to Jeremy Renner's character. To me, the SHIELD people were just fillers and nothing more.

            Why was this movie worth watching? There was no part that was memorable. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't inspirational. Everyone wants to be Superman, Spider-Man, Batman, or Iron-Man. Everyone wants to fight crime, or save people from a burning building. We want what superheroes have, and that is the ability to do what's right. They are the heroes that we all wish to be when reflecting in a mirror. In the end, I had to ask this question. Who would want to be Thor? 

Attack the Block (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            This particular alien movie, along with District 9, is shot entirely on the setting that plays a key role in the movie. Often people will talk about how this movie is this year's District 9, where the movie depicts aliens in a poor and forgotten part of the world that's not a part of a huge worldly pandemic alien invasion. They both also show a very fresh cast of people who are surprisingly well done and are judged purely on their ability on whether they can act, and not their celebrity status. The movie does have Nick Frost; however, he's not a main character.

            The movie centers around five hoodlums around a South London block, led by the dominant figure, Moses. The movie also revolves around a nurse name Sam, who just got mugged by the hoodlums. After a mysterious thing crash lands onto a car, the hoodlums chase after the alien thing, kills it, and bring it to their flat. However, more of these things seems start to appear everywhere around the block, and they are bigger, aggressive looking, and would kill if it wants to.

            This movie is a type of survival movie that I really like. It takes place in one night, and we see almost everything that's happening. It's like a type of zombie movie where the survivors are well prepared and advance, later retreating after being outnumbered. It's a type of movie where the group high fives each other as they're about to go into a huge fight. After finding out that the alien invasion has started, the hoodlums go into their flats and gear up with fireworks, a bat, a sword, and a knife. After being prepared to go on an all out assault with the "don't mess with our turf" spirit, they retreat into the block after being outnumbered with the bigger looking aliens, or, the big Gorilla Wolf motherf**kers.

            The running time for this movie was only 88 minutes; however, the movie has a great energetic feel from the beginning, to the end. It's extremely straightforward and it gets straight to the point. Everybody wants to go on an adventure to kill these aliens. Afterwards, everyone's life is at stake and end up fighting in order to stay alive. Even their pot driven conversations are worth listening to as each and every one of these characters are interesting and not cardboard clichés. There is a great spirit in this movie that's not found in staged mainstream movies. It's the kind of spirit that kids want to emulate after watching too much zombie action movies. For example, there are two little kids named Mayhem and Probs who are only about half the size of the hoodlums, but they carry around, what seems to be a toy gun, and a water gun, showing the aliens they mean business. In the trailer, I thought, "why does the kid have a water gun?" The answer, it's all in the spirit of the movie, like the spirit of preparing for a zombie apocalypse that'll never ever happen.

            Despite being hoodlums who've just mugged an innocent woman, we actually start to slowly relate to these kids who aren't just looking for trouble to brew. We get to especially get to relate to the de facto leader, Moses, who tries his best to lead the group into safety. At first, we see him as a punk who steals from people. When the first alien crash lands into Earth, Moses was the one who kills it. As everything starts to go downhill, the hoodlums have to team up with Sam, the nurse, who need her nurse expertise to treat a leg wound.

            For a low budget movie, made by a first time movie director, the movie has a great sense of using suspense, the "less is more" concept, and the use suspension of disbelief. Obviously, Joe Cornish is going to have a bright future ahead of him. He did his homework, and he knows what life is like in the South London block. This alien movie is a type of alien movie that works as a personal movie, where the visuals go hand in hand with the characters as they see this mayhem strictly through their point-of-view. There are moments where the scenes have darkness and smoke that seems conventional but surprisingly works to its advantage.

            It's very interesting how the hoodlums have a very strong South London accent, and because of their accent, the audience in America might get lost in their jargon. Sometimes, when I look up British comedians who joke around about current events in Britain or imitate a semi well known British person, I would get completely lost. I thought the same thing would happen in this movie; but instead, I totally understood almost everything that they're saying, despite having not recognized some of their slang. They do talk a bit fast at times, but it's really the character's action and the character's themselves that's emphasized. It's not a Jersey shore thing, it's a universal thing that anyone can recognize. If they were speaking in a foreign made up language, then I would still understand them in the movie.